Leslie Raphael's (Public) Conveniences [Archive]

View Full Version : Leslie Raphael's (Public) Conveniences

Pages : [1] 2

orphia nay

17th June 2006, 05:16 AM

In his article (http://www.spingola.com/jules_naudet.htm), Les Raphael claims his 69 conveniences are coincidences that provide circumstantial evidence that prove that Jules Naudets' footage of Flight 11's crash into the North tower was staged.

His coveniences are nothing more than arguments from incredulity (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity), a form of argument from ignorance.

Many of these conveniences are further examples of the logical fallacy known as non causa pro causa (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#noncausa).

There is one fact in the whole matter upon which each claim is based.
The fact is,

(I) Jules Naudet was able to film Flight 11's crash into the North Tower.

It does not follow that he was able to film it because he was in the right place as well as the right time. That is a cliché that is meaningless upon scrutiny. The fact is (I).
It would be suprising if he had been within view of the crash and hadn't filmed the footage.
If he was there at the time but did not film the footage, but still went on to make his film of the rescue efforts on that day, you can bet he would still be under Raphael's spotlight, for Raphael would know he had been within view of the crash and would find it suspicious.

He claims that each convenience is a coincidence that provides circumstantial evidence.

(i) For a coincidence to provide circumstantial evidence it requires 2 positive facts that together point to the separate fact of a crime being committed. (Note: I said 2 positive facts. Therefore, "saying something happened, but something else didn't" does not count as a coincidence, because there are an infinite number of things that could not have happened, whereas it requires two facts to make a coincidence about something. As an example, "The coincidence rule, however, applies to evidence that two or more “related events” occurred in order to prove that, because of the improbability of the events occurring coincidentally, a person “… did a particular act or had a particular state of mind”. http://www.jc.nsw.gov.au/ctcbb/ch04s03.html)

Please keep points (I) and (i) in mind.

The Flight 11 shot - conveniences

These 69 circumstances that made the filming of the first 9/11 plane a lot easier than it might otherwise have been - if possible at all - strongly suggest that they did not occur by chance, but were in fact the result of deliberate planning, which means foreknowledge.

The point should be made that the film is often described as "accidental," but Naudet was consciously trying to capture the plane when he filmed it - he wasn't filming something else when the plane appeared on screen. The "accident" is in why he was there at that time, and that was actually a whole series of coinciding simultaneous accidents - if they were accidents at all - the ones listed below.

Even something as simple as No. 1, hardly proof on its own, shows that Naudet was in a small minority: it reduces the chances of his being in this situation by accident, if you multiply in all the other factors. But this is not just about minorities of minorities of minorities, ad infinitum: it is about factors that are convenient to filming the plane and its impact. He was outside, for example, because the people who knew this was going to happen knew he would have to be outside to film it, and every other one of the 69 is a similar demonstration of a planned, staged event: every potential problem anticipated and dealt with, in the same way a fictional film is made - except that this is supposed to be a documentary.

All 69 could have been different, but all 69 happened the way they did because they were designed to happen that way. For example, Nos. 13, 16, 17 and 47 shows that whoever organized this knew how, where and when the plane would be flying. This does not involve all that much information: flight path straight towards floor 95, north face, north tower, arriving about 8:46:30. What more would you need? With those details known in advance, the rest of the filming plan could be worked out, and rehearsed (without the actual plane, of course) - with these results...

1. The photographer is outside, not — like most people in Manhattan at any given time — in a building (like the firehouse he was in 15 minutes before) or a vehicle (like the car he was in 5 minutes before), where filming a plane would be far more difficult.

See (I) and (i). (Filming from a car would not be impossible.) Argument from incredulity. (He was not in a building, he was not asleep, he was not eating breakfast, etc.)

2. He is in the middle of Lispenard Street, not on a pavement, where he would risk pedestrians walking in front of him, bumping into him, running past him, etc.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (He is not not filming, he is not having a coughing fit, he was where he was because he was where he was, etc.)

3. He is in a north-south street, giving a view of the Twin Towers — not, for example, further west along Lispenard, with the 430-foot AT&T Building in front of him, blocking the south view — which even the 40-foot building on the east side of the street would do, as demonstrated in the photograph at the start of this essay, which does not even show its full five-floor height.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (He is not on the moon, he is not in the park, he is not in the dark, etc. He was where he was because he was where he was.)

4. He is at a crossroads, which puts the full width of an east-west street (Lispenard) between him, at the north-east corner, and the traffic, blocking the south end of the intersection. If he had been at the south-east corner, or if the roadblock had been in a north-south street, but not at an intersection, the stalled traffic might not have completely obscured his view of the tower, but he would have been standing too near it, and might have had to film the impact above the top of a 7-foot mail van or fire truck, which would look too convenient. Using an intersection provides an excuse for getting him right back from the traffic and filming from the other, north side of the street. And if the cameraman has to be at the north-east then so does the gas leak. Why at this particular intersection, and not, for example, the next one down, Church and Walker? Because this one has the huge, and hugely convenient, AT&T Building — see No. 38.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity; affirmation of the consequent. (Why was he not in Sesame Street, or in Belgium, etc?)

5. He is in one of the few streets in Manhattan, if not the only one, where he could photograph a building (a pair of buildings, in this case) in the street next door, three quarters of a mile away, in the middle of his picture and equidistant from buildings on the sides of the street he is in, with only fresh air between them - and above them - and no other buildings from next door visible. You don't get this view from West Broadway next door to the west, and Broadway on the east side had no view at all of the Trade Center. Anyone who worked around Church and Lispenard would know about this amazing view, but what are the chances of someone accidentally having it as a backdrop the day a plane flew into that building next door?

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (He had to see it to be able to film it. How many New York inhabitants used the twin towers to get their bearings; wasn't it the most prominent sight in the city?)

6. Any building visible from the street next door, from that distance, would have to be at least 800 feet tall, which excludes all but a dozen in the whole of New York. The only reason these buildings are visible at all is because they are the tallest in the whole city, and this picture is not the normal Manhattan street scene it is made out to be. In a million pictures of New York taken at random from street level, how many would accidentally show the tallest buildings in the city - three quarters of a mile away - in the middle of the picture - with empty space to left, right and above - from a street next door to them - with skyscrapers of its own - equidistant from the buildings on either side? I would suggest - with emphasis on the words "random" and "accidentally" - not a single one. But if not random, and deliberately composed that way - as many as you like.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (Yawn... sorry. If you were in Paris, wouldn't you try to spot the Eiffel Tower and get it in the background wherever possible?)

7. If he was in West Broadway, he would only be able to see the north face, and his film of the plane would look too convenient, but from even one street away, with the towers' corners visible - and only their top quarter - it is impossible to tell how close he is to them: he could be on the other side of the city. Even New York inhabitants might not be familiar with the view from Church Street, or realize that this is only one street away from the towers - and the film does not mention the fact.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (Is he saying that the coincidence wasn't a big coincidence and so that makes this a coincidence?)

8. The picture has also been composed vertically: 1. the street traffic, 2. the Tribeca Hotel and the building beyond it, further down Church Street, 3. the Twin Towers. There might have been no middle layer in this sandwich - he could have filmed the plane immediately above the top of Chief Pfeifer’s SUV - but having other buildings in between increases the distance between the target and any possible distractions at ground level.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (He wasn't standing on his head or leaning at a 45 degree angle - isn't that suprising?)

9. He has a camcorder with him, unlike most people — even professional photographers don't always have their equipment with them.

See (I) (how could he have filmed it if he hadn't filmed it?) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (Would it be a coincidence if he hadn't filmed it? Conspiracy theorists disbelieve any information provided on that day except for allegations of conspiracy and deceit.)

10. He is already filming with it when the plane appears, when he might still have had to switch it on, load a tape, change the battery, etc.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (It would still be 'evidence' of fraud if he'd just started filming, I suspect. See later.)

11. The group members are all standing still, unlike most New York pedestrians — or firemen — who tend to be going somewhere.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (They'd just finished watching the gas leak being dealt with -not a reason to jump up and down.)

12. The gas leak has just been dealt with seconds before the plane appears, and nothing of any great importance happens in the interim, which allows the photographer to immediately switch to filming the new subject.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. Duplicate of #10. (It would still be 'evidence' of fraud if he'd just started filming, I suspect.)

13. The plane flies alongside the next street west, when it could have been 20 blocks away — but would they have heard it?

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. Non-sequitur. (He hasn't proved that they couldn't have filmed it without hearing it as well.)

14. The cameraman is already filming westwards — almost towards the plane's closest approach to him, about 250 yards away — just before it arrives. This makes it easier to capture on film when it does arrive, by simply waiting for it to pass its closest point and disappear behind the AT&T Building before panning left. The plane could have turned up behind him, or at an awkward angle, instead of passing straight in front, from right to left, north to south.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (Help! I'm losing braincells thinking like a conspiracy theorist so that I can understand some of these. The plane could have been a flock of pelicans, or a frisbee, etc.)

15. The plane's closest point is where it is most difficult to film: the cameraman does not attempt to film its flight until it passes that point, and is flying away from him — much easier to film than flying towards him, at that speed, that close — yet he must have been able to see the plane arriving, beyond the Post Office building to the north-west.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (How does Les Raphael know that Naudet wasn't detecting the plane without moving the camera? Would Raphael say it was a 'coincidence' if the plane's closest point had been the easiest to film?)

16. The plane is flying horizontally, in a straight line, making its direction easier to follow, when it could have been turning, or flying in circles, or climbing, or falling.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (The plane is not doing loop-the-loops, or travelling at 1000kph, etc.)

17. The gas leak call is at 8.30, putting the group on location at the right time, when it might have been ten minutes earlier, and by 8.45 they would have been back down in Duane Street, having dealt with it — or ten minutes later, and they would still have been driving up Church Street when the plane passed, heading in the opposite direction. (In a Fire Department (WTC Task Force) interview, 23 October 2001, Pfeifer claimed the call was "sometime about 8.15 or so” and that "We were there for a while." A half hour for a gas leak?)

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (Why not a half an hour for a gas leak? (Raphael seems suspicious about the gas leak, yet claims it 'was not a hoax call' at #55) Why not half an hour, especially if they couldn't locate the source?)

18. The call (which was not filmed, despite the cameraman being at the firehouse when it came in) is about a gas leak, when it might have been about a fire — but would the cameraman have been able to film the plane if he was filming a fire, with noise, smoke and danger?

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (It might have been about a giant gorilla terrorising the city, etc.)

19. How many other cameramen could have been "in the right place, at the right time" if, like Naudet, they had been conveniently filming one of the emergency services, whose job involves being in any place, at any time, allowing an instant pretext to be contrived?

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (How long is a piece of string? How many filmmakers filming pandas in China could have filmed the same thing?)

20. The cameraman is not troubled by traffic obstructing his view, any more than pedestrians: the junction has been blocked with fire vehicles — although, since the gas leak is at the north-east corner, they could have been parked up the east end of Lispenard — but that would not be convenient, when it would leave northwards traffic, like the white mail van parked at the lights, or one that might be heading up to the Post Office for a collection.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. See #2, #4, #21. (They were filming the firefighters and had been for months. The road was blocked. There was no endless stream of double-decker buses filing past, either.)

21. At a junction of two one-way streets (Church northwards, Lispenard eastwards), where Church has been blocked, he only has to worry about traffic coming from one direction — the one he is filming towards — west.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. Duplicate. See #2, #4, #20, #22. (There were no UFOs to distract him, either.)

22. There would not be much through traffic from that direction in any case, since from this junction eastwards, Lispenard Street is virtually a one-way cul de sac, stretching only one more block before ending where Broadway meets Canal Street. (Another reason the area is relatively quiet for Manhattan is that the subway and bus routes up Church Street turn off to the north-west up Avenue of the Americas, three blocks south of Lispenard). But he needs to be able to guarantee no traffic.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. Non causa pro causa. See #2, #4, #20, #21.

23. The photographer could quite easily have been filming the firemen towards the east, but the film's only, and very brief, view in that direction is just after the photographer gets out of the car (Edit 24 in the film sequence list). After that we get south (Edits 25 and 26), north (27) and west (30), but never again east. Why? Because the less time he has until the plane's arrival, the more he wants to avoid having his back to it, and east is the worst direction to be facing, with the plane behind him.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (He might have got to filming towards the east except something caught his attention... Or, he didn't film to the east, or to the ground, because the Flying Spaghetti Monster wasn't sneakily doing a pirate jig behind him.)

24. It cannot be to avoid being dazzled by the sun, because, as the film clearly shows, he cannot even see it — he and the entire width (and length) of Church Street are in the shade, while the Trade Center towers are in the sunshine — perfect filming conditions.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (There was no comet crashing to the Earth to distract him, either.)

25. The cameraman is with a group of firemen, of all people, just as one of the most disastrous fires in US history breaks out, when he could have been with, for example, a group of office workers — in, for example, the World Trade Center.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (What is unsurprising about working on an established project with a worthy subject? He could have been filming paint dry on the Brooklyn Bridge, or filming ants build a farm in a Tasmanian student's bedroom, etc.)

26. He manages to record a plane actually crashing — incredibly rare, if not unique — when no-one captured either Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon or Flight 93 crashing in Pennsylvania later that morning, or — for example — the crash in Queens two months after 9/11, or the crash of a DC-8 in Brooklyn in 1960.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (Hlava filmed it too. Naudet's was unique, but not unique? Raphael is very confused.)

27. He isn't — as shown earlier in the film (edit 26 in film sequence list) — kneeling in the street filming firemen hiding the Twin Towers when the plane passes, or they would have blocked the view.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (He's not having a sneezing fit, he's not on the loo, etc.)

28. He isn't — also as shown earlier in the film (edit 28) — filming towards the ground when the plane passes, or capturing the plane would have been far more difficult.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. Duplicate. See #23. (The fireman also weren't accompanying the FSM.)

29. He is standing, stationary, undistracted and facing the subject when the plane passes, when he could have been kneeling, walking, concentrating on filming something important or with his back to the subject.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. Duplicate. See #11, #27, #23. (He could have been doing an infinite number of things. Where are the coincidences?)

30. The men in front of him when the plane arrives behind them are all standing in silence, and apparently only pretending to be busy, and it is never established whether there actually was a leak, or if so, how to deal with it. Chief Pfeifer fiddles with his gas meter and sticks his hand in his pocket, and his fireman colleague leans over the grating, as if, like the bystander beside them, looking for the world's first visible gas leak. If they had been genuinely occupied, it would have been a distraction from the plane — which, unlike the photographer's ostensible subjects, could hardly be called aimless. (In a 2002 interview, Pfeifer claimed that "they" — not "I," not "we" — phoned Con Ed, the utility company, but there is no evidence in the film of him or anyone else making that call before the plane arrives, and after it the gas leak seems to be forgotten about — having served its function as an invented excuse. In January 2002, firefighter Tom Spinard (Engine 7, Duane Street) told a WTC Task Force interviewer the call "turned out to be a false alarm." So when did that become apparent — one second before the plane turned up?

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. See #12 - "seconds"; #41 - "3 seconds". Duplicated in #17. (I wish Raphael could be more succinct and to the point. I'm quite fond of my braincells.)

31. No-one in the film distracts his attention by talking to him, and the cameraman's own voice is never heard; voices close to the camcorder microphone could even have drowned out the plane. The firemen might have noticed it, but would the cameraman?

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (What, that no-one talked during the few seconds of the crash footage is surprising? Why would the cameraman drown out his own film? Is this thing staged or not staged? Now I'm confused.)

32. He has no view of the south or west sides of the north tower and only a distorted view of the top third of the east side ; the only part of the building he has a clear, direct view of is the top third of the north face — less than 10% of the whole tower. When the plane's impact could have been on any side of the building, down to at least the 50th floor — more than 50% of the tower's exterior surface — most of it hidden from the cameraman — how convenient it should be in the middle of the only 10% [he] has a clear view of, on the face closest to him.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. In #40 Raphael claims it was the top twelfth of the building (9%). In #41 he claims it was the top 20 floors (18%). The plane crashed into the 95th floor of a 110 floor building. If Naudet could see the plane crash in the middle of the part of the building that he could see, that means 30 floors were visible, making it the top 27% visible, which makes Raphael 63% out.

33. He judges the point where the plane reappears so precisely — left and up simultaneously — rather than left and then up, wasting time — that no adjustment is required, up or down, left or right, when he might have overshot, undershot, or had to raise or lower the camera, blurring his picture of the impact.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (Raphael claims the picture was blurred "but not nearly as much as it might have been", in the post-script to his 69 conveniences. His point seems to be that that is to hinder identification of the plane. I think my neural pathways are starting to work like his, thus suffering severe directional damage to their transmission and reception.

34. He judges the plane's speed (and the length of the building) so precisely he catches it just as it comes back into sight: neither too early — which would look premature - nor too late to capture the impact.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. Duplicate. See #33, #35, #36. (How many ways can you say 'he filmed the impact'?)

35. He captures the point of impact almost exactly in the centre of the picture, when it could easily — and far more credibly — have been off centre, at the edge, or barely captured at all.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. Duplicate. See #33, #34, #36. (How many ways can you say 'he filmed the impact'? It could have been film of a ghostly orb, or of a pineapple growing legs, etc.)

36. In a TV interview in 2002, he claimed to have been so close (but still managing to avoid mentioning he was in the next street, as if he could fail to be aware of it, having lived in New York since 1989) he could read the plane's markings, making the accuracy of his judgment even more astonishing, if he was looking up at the plane one second, and down at his camcorder's viewfinder the next, to pan left.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. Duplicate. See #33, #34, #35. (How many ways can you say 'he filmed the impact'? Why is it astonishing that he can focus with one eye and then the next without moving the camera?)

37. He films a plane flying at 450 m.p.h. with a stationary camera, when most photographers would have to move the camera — and/or themselves — to track a plane in motion ; in this film, the camera motion stops when the plane motion starts — when it first appears, that is — when most film of planes has both together.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. See #45 - 'he pans 90 degrees'. (Does he move the camera or doesn't he?)

38. He manages this feat by having a 430-foot building hiding the plane until it is far enough away to film from almost straight behind it, with plane and target so close together it disguises the fact that the focus of the film is the target, not the plane about to hit it.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. Affirming the consequent. (How many more ways can you say 'he filmed the impact'?)

39. He is at the north end of this building, which hides the plane for most of its remaining flight — until the last couple of seconds — when if he had been further south, it would have appeared earlier, which might involve trying to follow it with the camera; further north, and neither plane nor target might be visible at all.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (How does Raphael know he couldn't have followed it with the camera? If the plane had been a huge mind-controlled flock of pelicans, and if one of them had pooed on him and if he had stopped to clean himself, etc.)

40. He condenses a plane flying half a mile into an angle of 20 degrees, between its reappearance at the south-east corner of the AT&T Building and the impact point on the north tower - the last two seconds of a 46-minute flight, compacted to an eighteenth of a full circle, before the plane hits the only twelfth of the building clearly visible to the only cameraman in Manhattan to film it happening : truly, photographic minimalism at its most minimal - with total concentration on what is known, in a different branch of the film industry, as the Money Shot.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. See #33-37. Raphael also states that Naudet panned 90 degrees. (How many more ways can you say 'he filmed the impact'? Is he in control of the plane and the laws of physics?)

41. He could have been at the Duane Street firehouse, but filming the plane would have been far more difficult, with only three seconds' warning, and, being much closer to the tower, having to swing the camera right up to the top 20 floors — even if the firehouse faced south, which it doesn't, meaning he would have had to run outside and across the street.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. 30 floors, not 20. (How many more ways can you say 'he filmed the impact'?)

42. He could have been in West Broadway, but the plane would have been just about overhead, with no AT&T Building providing an excuse for not even attempting to track it in motion.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (Raphael could have been in rehab or on medication for these types of thought processes. Naudet could have been at Coney Island, or in Madagascar, etc.)

43. He could have attempted to zoom in on the plane before it hit its target, but might have lost it with the tiniest camera motion magnified, and missed the impact shot, or blurred it.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (Why would he zoom in - it wasn't a UFO. He said he could see the plane's markings, but how would he know that they would not show up in the film. He had a sense of direction and of proportion, so he could have seen it was heading for the twin towers - and he had no time to zoom in.)

44. At the plane's speed, it would have been a mile away within eight seconds; if he was so curious about the plane, having lost his chance to capture a close-up and seen it disappearing behind a huge building, how much was he hoping to be able to see by the time it reappeared? What made him carry on trying to film it when it was already tiny and getting tinier by the second?

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. See #43.

45. He is standing on the same spot when the plane hits the building, three quarters of a mile away, as when it almost flew over his head six seconds before, when he might have had to walk, or at least lean — more than just pan 90 degrees — to capture an object that had moved that distance at that speed.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. See #33-37, #40, #45, #53. (How many more ways can you say 'he filmed the impact'? Here Raphael says the plane is easy to capture, elsewhere he claims Naudet is overly skilled. More confusion.)

46. Between the sound warning and the impact, he has a convenient six seconds to capture the event, when it might only have been two — or gone on for sixty, if, for example, the plane had flown around the target and come back for the collision — as the Pentagon plane did later.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (Both 2 and 60 seconds would be convenient, would they? How convenient...)

47. The plane's flight is horizontal, and low enough to allow the engine noise to be heard on the ground, when it could have targeted the tower diagonally downwards, and not been audible until the last couple of seconds.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. Duplicate. See #16. (Yes, it could have been doing loop-the-loops, or it could have crashed right into the AT&T building, then there'd be more conveniences.)

48. He has a completely unobstructed view of the small part of the tower he could see, when there might have been other buildings or street furniture in the way — like the traffic lights at the south-east corner, or — not shown in the film - the suspended lights at the north-east corner.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. See #6, #3, #32. (How many more ways can you say 'he filmed the impact'? There were no double-decker buses in front of him, no trucks, trains, or unfeasibly tall men on stilts, either.)

49. The plane hits the first building visible ahead of it after it first appears on film, when it could have hit the second one (the south tower), a third one not visible in the film, etc — or none at all.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (How many more ways can you say 'he filmed the impact'? The first building hit was the first building hit. Good coincidence?)

50. The north tower is hit first, when it could have been the south tower — but filming a head-on view of that from the same distance, without using zoom, would put the photographer in the Hudson River. None of the actual views of the south tower impact were from that angle or distance — and that's why.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (How many more ways can you say 'he filmed the impact'? Yawn... I need a nap to regenerate my brain's functionality.)

51. He and the firemen — and the alleged gas leak — could have been on the west side of Church Street, but the towers would have been completely hidden behind the AT&T Building, making capturing the plane virtually impossible.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. See #41, #42. (How many more ways can you say 'he filmed the impact'? He could have been a brain-dead zombie, etc.)

52. The gas leak could have been — most are - inside a building, but was allegedly out on the street.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. Duplicate. See #1. (How many more ways can you say 'he filmed the impact'? When can I stop? When does it end? Oh yeah, #69... how hmmm, convenient.)

53. The pan is only 90 degrees, when it might have been 180 or more — if, for example, he had been facing east and swung round anti-clockwise, towards the firemen, increasing the risk of blurring the picture.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (How many more ways can you say 'he filmed the impact'? If he had 6 seconds he had time to pan 180.)

54. All the firemen are standing in front of him or on his right when the plane passes, when they, or just one of them, could have been on his left, blocking his view of the impact. There were twelve from Duane Street alone, yet no more than five firemen, from any house, are ever on screen at any one time: where are the rest of them, where are the men from the two other houses who answered the call, and how could every single one of these 20-plus firemen manage to avoid accidentally getting into the impact picture? When the plane hits the tower, not one fireman is in shot, yet this junction is supposedly swarming with them.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (Are they all supposed to be publicity -seekers? Why should they all be in front of the camera? Were there more firemen than space in the area? They were not invaders of Jules Naudet's personal space like someone of whom I'm thinking.)

55. The phone call was not, like many of those received by FDNY, a hoax call, or the firemen would have left the scene before the plane arrived.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (The phone call was not a call to tell the guys their syndicate had just won the lottery, so they were all not in the pub celebrating. The phone call was not a call from Dick Cheney to be on the scene and help with the cover-up either.)

56. The gas leak is dealt with before the plane turns up; if the plane had turned up just as they arrived at the junction, it would look premature, and suspiciously convenient — even more so than having Subject A dealt with first, before Subject B. In real life, Subject B would be more likely to interrupt than wait for an earlier subject to end.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. Duplicate. See #10, #12. (How many more ways can you say 'he filmed the impact'?)

57. He could have recorded (on film or audio) ten seconds of the flight, but not the last ten seconds ; he could have recorded the ten seconds before the last ten but then lost view of the tower, and/or the plane ; that did not happen. He is only interested in capturing the flight's end - the rest of it is totally irrelevant to him - and he knows where its end is going to be, so he only has to make sure of having a view of the tower.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. Logical fallacy - Non causa pro causa. (He could have filmed the plane's take-off and could have teleported to the site, etc.)

58. If you wanted to arrange film of the impact, followed by a close-up of the gash in the building, a photographer north of the tower would be needed; this photographer is to the north, only 12 degrees east of the plane's flight path, measured from the target.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. Non causa pro causa. (How would you know no-one else (other than Hlava) would film it?)

59. He would have to be not too close, to get a proper view of the top of the tower — and to avoid danger — but not so far away he had no view at all; this photographer is at a reasonable distance — roughly 1,300 yards - six seconds of flying time. He could have been one second away, or twenty seconds - both totally useless for filming the plane.* He might have been so close he couldn't fit the tower into his picture, or focus on it properly: sudden unexpected events often are either too close, too far away, too small or too big, to capture on film - but the dimensions and the focus of this one were just right, somehow. Not everybody could get a decent picture of a Boeing 767 with wings 150 feet wide and a tail 50 feet tall smashing into the top floors of a giant skyscraper 1,200 feet off the ground, at 450 miles an hour - not your average holiday snap - even if they knew, hours in advance, it was going to happen: how on earth could you possibly take a picture of that? And if you knew, how could you take the picture so as to disguise the incriminating evidence? How could you make it look accidental? Could it, in fact, credibly be accidental? But that’s the central issue of this whole essay.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity and ignorance. (*Why?)

60. He would have to be close enough to the plane to hear the engine noise above sounds closer to him — music, traffic, etc; this photographer was one street away, at a crossroads with no moving traffic — but two parked fire trucks, more than capable of burying plane noise, if close enough to the cameraman, and if their engines weren't switched off.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. (How does Raphael know he wouldn't have seen the plane without hearing it?)

61. He would need to avoid tracking the plane in motion, so as to record the impact clearly; his pan left means he blurs only the building, not the plane, and the entire filmed flight is contained in just one stationary frame. (Or perhaps the reason for not filming the plane from close to it might be to avoid clarity, rather than blurring — to hide the fact, for example, that it was not a Boeing jet, or not a 767, or not American Airlines, or not Flight 11).

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. See #37 (filmed with a stationary camera), #40. #45,. (How many more ways can you say 'he filmed the impact'?)

62. He would want to visually condense the flight to the minimum, so as to avoid camera motion — the best way being to get right behind the plane; this film is shot from right behind the plane, with the visible flight condensed to 20 degrees.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. Duplicate. See #37, #40. #45, #61. (How many more ways can you say 'he filmed the impact'?)

63. He would want to leave out all of the flight but the last few seconds — the rest of the flight would be an irrelevance or a distraction, and only the impact needs to be captured; he films only the last two seconds.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. See #57. (How many more ways can you say 'he filmed the impact'?)

64. He would want to leave out most of the tower, and only capture the area of the impact — the rest of the tower is irrelevant, nothing is happening there, and if anything did, it could be a distraction, or an obstacle to filming; only the top third of the north face is visible in the film, the rest of the building being hidden behind others. The plane hits that very part of that face. The partial view also misleads as to how close the photographer is to tower and plane.

See (I) and (i). Incredulous speculation. Non causa pro causa.

65. He would need to have some photographic experience, when no amateur could capture a scene like this, with its sudden, fast, perfectly-judged 90-degree pan. Jules and Gédéon Naudet are documentary film-makers, both listed as "Director, Producer, Cameraman and Editor" in their only previous film, "Hope, Gloves and Redemption: The Story of Mickey and ***** Rosario" (filmed in 1999, issued on DVD (Echelon) in 2002, reissued (Pathfinder PH 90969) in 2004), raising questions over Jules' claim to have almost no camera experience (Edits 19 and 22).

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity and ignorance. Edits 19 and 22 show Naudet using the word 'practice', not claiming to have almost no experience. Even experts have to practice, or warm up.

66. He would need a cover story as a pretext for being in the right place at the right time to capture the plane; the documentary film about the firemen and the gas leak at that junction provide a plausible pretext — on first appearances.

See (I) and (i). Incredulous speculation. Non causa pro causa.

67. His film was about firemen, when if he had been filming, as in his previous film, boxers, they would not have been out in the street first thing in the morning, they would not have had the right to block road traffic at a junction, they would not be able to provide instant transport down to the tower after the first impact or the authority to enter the building, etc.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. Non causa pro causa. (If he had been filming boxers, they might have been going for a morning jog in another place with a view of the crash. If he had been President of the USA he would have been part of the cover-up as well... wait, I think I may have done myself some serious damage doing this analysis.)

68. He already has a perfectly clear view of the target from where he is standing, so he could have captured the impact without having to pan the camera left at all, but it would look suspect if he was filming the target just as the plane appeared in view; the camera motion suggests lack of preparation — although the perfect motion and the perfect view at the end of it, having the tower in the middle of the frame, suggest otherwise.

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity. Non causa pro causa. Speculation.

69. If just one of these circumstances had not applied[(I)That he hadn't filmed the impact, perhaps?], this film might easily not exist; how likely is it that every one applied, not one went wrong, and that not one other person in Manhattan managed even one single piece of luck, to produce even an off-centre, blurred monochrome photograph of the event, let alone perfect color film of it? A unique film might be credible — if it had faults — or, conversely, a perfect film, if we had others less perfect to compare it with — if not quite as imperfect as the Hlava film. How likely is it that this photographer achieved both uniqueness and perfection?

See (I) and (i). Argument from incredulity and ignorance. Equivocation of the word 'perfection'. (Unique but not unique? Perfect but not perfect? See his postscript below.)

The word "perfection," is, of course, relative: the film is "perfect" in the sense that it fulfils all the requirements. It is slightly blurred — but not nearly as much as it might have been; and it captures the sound of the plane, its last two seconds of flight and its impact, right in the centre of the picture, followed by close-ups, with no editing — the whole 44-second sequence is uninterrupted; and it does it in a way that looks plausibly accidental. The kind of perfection that involved showing us a clear, totally undistorted close-up of the plane in flight, with its "American Airlines" livery visible, would be the kind of perfection that destroyed any chance of luck as an explanation.

An exercise like this involves weighing different factors against each other. You can never have absolute perfection in every department — sacrifices have to be made, and the main sacrifice here was that the plane had to be filmed from a considerable distance. It is still clearly identifiable as a plane, and that was the point of the exercise — filming the damage and what caused it.

Yawn! [Stretch.]

Leslie Raphael: You admit you have not provided hard evidence of a cover-up, or of the Naudets' footage being staged. Now you must admit that you have not provided circumstantial evidence.

That's it - I'm done! I'm off to read a book on logic to try and train some more cells to replace the ones I've lost here today.

[Edited to correct borked text justification]

Gravy

17th June 2006, 06:55 AM

Nice try, Orphia. But if you had published this before Les Raphael had written his essay, then it might refute something.

69. If just one of these circumstances had not applied, this film might easily not exist
And if just one of a few hundred million sperm cells hadn't penetrated a specific egg, Les Raphael wouldn't exist. See, not all coincidences are "convenient." Some are downright annoying.

XXX

17th June 2006, 01:49 PM

You beat me to it Orphia! I was working on this exact same thing!

Shrinker

17th June 2006, 02:11 PM

You beat me to it Orphia! I was working on this exact same thing!
Me too, but after reading his barmy ravings I couldn't think of more than three words.

Gravy

17th June 2006, 04:07 PM

Me too, but after reading his barmy ravings I couldn't think of more than three words.
I feel the same way. Thanks for your diligence, Orphia. You spoke for many of us!

Carnivore

17th June 2006, 04:35 PM

As an appreciative spectator of the Team JREF Ninja Wave's work, may I just thank you all for everything you are doing. :)

geni

17th June 2006, 07:48 PM

Should be noted that the crash of Air France Flight 4590 was filmed (or at least it was filmed for a truck while it was on fire).

orphia nay

17th June 2006, 09:10 PM

Thanks, geni.

You beat me to it Orphia! I was working on this exact same thing!

I hope you hadn't got too far, and I've saved you some braincells. Please feel free to add any comments, or post your own analysis too.

Me too, but after reading his barmy ravings I couldn't think of more than three words.

"Naudet filmed crash" perhaps? Or was one word "Raphael" and one word not allowed due to Rule 8?

I feel the same way. Thanks for your diligence, Orphia. You spoke for many of us!

Thankyou very much, Gravy. You have been an inspiration to me.

As an appreciative spectator of the Team JREF Ninja Wave's work, may I just thank you all for everything you are doing. :)

Thankyou very much on behalf of the ninjas, and a warm "Welcome!" to the forum.

XXX

17th June 2006, 10:12 PM

steve s

18th June 2006, 12:01 AM

I think we should add some more coincidences to his list.

70. The Naudet's camera was working that day. What are the odds that it wasn't in the repair shop?

71. The Naudets knew how to use their camera. Seriously. What are the odds that a professional videographer would know how to use his equipment?

72. The camera had videotape in it. How many times have you reached for your camera and there was no film or tape in it? Huh?

73. The Naudets were alive to film it. Considering how many people around the world died that day, it's a real miracle they were alive.

74. Both of the Twin Towers were in Manhattan that day. What are the odds of that?

Steve S.

CptColumbo

18th June 2006, 12:17 AM

75. It was daylight out. How often does that happen?

Timothy

18th June 2006, 01:42 AM

Wow. This clears up a lot for me.

Clearly the same argument applies to the Abraham Zapruder film, hence it was staged for the government-planned Kennedy assassination ... which just proves the coverup we all know to be there.

Amazing, the way coincidences work.

- Timothy

orphia nay

18th June 2006, 02:44 AM

I'd love to add some on, thanks. Work is on another computer though, housesitting right now. And I didn't hit every single point.

But they guy is clearly running up the numbers in many spots, and credits the Naudets with things like how the sun shines.

Exactly.
I'll look forward to hearing more from you.

I think we should add some more coincidences to his list.

70. The Naudet's camera was working that day. What are the odds that it wasn't in the repair shop?

71. The Naudets knew how to use their camera. Seriously. What are the odds that a professional videographer would know how to use his equipment?

72. The camera had videotape in it. How many times have you reached for your camera and there was no film or tape in it? Huh?

73. The Naudets were alive to film it. Considering how many people around the world died that day, it's a real miracle they were alive.

74. Both of the Twin Towers were in Manhattan that day. What are the odds of that?

Steve S.

75. It was daylight out. How often does that happen?

:) Hehehe. Now, look, don't give Leslie Raphael ideas. Keep your eyes open for another update of his article. ;)

geni

18th June 2006, 06:45 AM

So when are we going to see this on skeptic wiki?

orphia nay

18th June 2006, 11:56 PM

geni, I'd be pleased to post this at the skepticwiki. Or did you mean just start a new topic there? I'll sign up and do that while I await a reply.
Cheers.

Ray Ubinger

19th June 2006, 02:07 PM

> It would be suprising if he had been within view of the crash and hadn't filmed the footage

Or been within view of the crash and filmed it and not shown it to anyone, like his brother Gedeon was & did & didn't.

911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm

911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm

I'm claiming the Naudets had a SECOND camera running at the instant of the 1st Hit, eleven blocks closer to WTC on the SAME STREET (Church St.), specifically to capture the pedestrian reaction at that first terrible moment. But they cut the first clip short before the camera finished tilting up to show us the immediate aftermath of the 1st Hit. In the second clip, we are given a tilt up onto burning Tower 1, shot from that same sidewalk area, but, it is at least a moment later.

Ray Ubinger

Gravy

19th June 2006, 04:55 PM

Ray Ubinger

19th June 2006, 08:39 PM

> There's no evidence of Gedeon, or a second camera, being there, is there?

There is, but maybe you didn't get the link to work. I'm not allowed to post the full links since I'm brand new. Put h t t p : / / in front of the two almost-URLs
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
and
911foreknolwedge.com/debris/location4.htm
to see what the Naudets' second camera saw at 8:46 a.m. The first one is evidence of second camera being on Church St. at 8:46. Pedestrians walking along normally (not post-1st Hit) and then reacting to the (1st) Hit.

The second clip was shot a moment later from the same part of the same sidewalk area.

The reasons to think it's Gedeon's camera are:

the footage is exclusive to the Naudet movie, so one of the two brothers shot it

we already know what brother Jules was filming at 8:46 at Church & Lispenard

it's from Church near Murray, which Gedeon is explicitly shown filming at LATER in the movie. (he is depicted as going up and down a single stretch of Church St. 3 times that a.m.)

> I noticed on your site you say this about a bystander:

yeah the lady I say is a possible Condi-Rice lookalike. I can't get the post to quote what you quoted, so I'm paraphrasing.

< Can you explain your thought process here?

She just reminds me a little of Condi. I'm just describing a way to help the reader see her for yourself as the 3rd person who turns up/around to look at the 1st Hit impact.

Do you at least agree that a 2nd Naudet camera at 8:46 that they never told us about would be supportive of the Naudet Guilt hypothesis? Or am I going to waste my time to prove such a camera existed, only to have you say it doesn't matter?

Ray Ubinger

Gravy

19th June 2006, 08:53 PM

Do you at least agree that a 2nd Naudet camera at 8:46 that they never told us about would be supportive of the Naudet Guilt hypothesis? Or am I going to waste my time to prove such a camera existed, only to have you say it doesn't matter?
The links worked fine, but the clips are very brief and out of context. If it shows the reaction to the first plane roaring overhead and hitting, why isn't everyone reacting? Church & Murray is only TWO BLOCKS from the WTC, as opposed to where Jules Naudet was, 14 blocks away. Why do you say that the sound we hear is the first plane hitting? Does that sound even belong to the clip?

I don't have the Naudet film, and I'm not about to buy it and scrutinize it over a claim that's probably spurious. Forgive me, but 9/11 CTs have not fared well with their claims.

If the Naudets said that only one of them was at the scene, and both turned out to be there, it would show that they and the fire squad lied about that.

If you find evidence of that, I'd certainly be interested to see it.

edit: spelling

orphia nay

20th June 2006, 01:47 AM

Is it just me, or is anyone else wondering, if the Naudets were 'in on a cover-up', why wasn't Gédéon filming back-up footage of the impact, instead of supposedly filming the backs of a few people (when Jules was lucky to capture the impact at all)?

gumboot

20th June 2006, 02:06 AM

Wow... that's amazing. Insanity knows no bounds.

Being a professional filmmaker myself... you are pretty unprofessional if you spend time making a documentary and you don't have tape in the camera, don't have lots of battery life, and aren't ready to record whatever crazy thing might happen. Documentary camera operators practically have their cameras grafted to their hands, to make sure they're always available.

Statistically... if the chance of someone capturing the hit was 1 million to 1, how many million people are in New York, and therefore how many people would have captured the hit?

-Andrew

The_Fire

20th June 2006, 02:58 AM

Personally, I always have an extra tape and fully charged battery in my pockets when I'm on a shoot. Even if I'm not the cameraperson. You know, just to be on the safe side.

Ray Ubinger

20th June 2006, 04:06 AM

Gravy writes:

> [T]he clips are very brief

I agree they're not long, but they are excerpted in their entirety, and they're long and detailed enough to substantiate what I'm saying. The first shows pedestrian reaction at the instant of the 1st Hit, but it stop short of tilting up to show us the immediate 1st Hit impact aftermath. The second shows the impact aftermath a moment or some moments later, from the same place.

ophia nay was saying it would be suspicious if someone were filming within sight at the impact moment and didn't show us. I'm agreeing with that and arguing that that's exactly what Gedeon Naudet did on the east side of Church St. between Park Pl. and Murray St.

> and out of context.

The reaction shot is shown in more context at
h t t p : / /
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld2.htm

which actually illustrates by the Naudets' OWN PLACEMENT of it (in the sequence of the sorta 'terror preview' montage near the start of their film), that it is footage of reaction at the instant the attacks began.

(
> If it shows the reaction to the first plane roaring overhead and hitting,

Not to get sidetracked, but I don't see a plane in the 1st Hit footage:
thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig/flashframe.jpg
missilegate.com
)

> why isn't everyone reacting?

Okay this is back on the topic I brought up. My answer is that the film simply stops short of everyone else's reactions, after showing only the first three reacting people's first reflexive jolt of reaction.

It's just like the first HALF SECOND of reaction, stretched out to 3 or 4 seconds by slow motion. Everyone else is certainly about to react, but the three people reacting in the very first half second are all we're shown.

You do apparently concede that it starts with nobody looking up AND THEN shows some people looking up. That is precisely how I originally figured out that it is footage of pedestrian reaction at the instant of the 1st Hit. That instant was precisely when people were walking along normally and then suddenly whirled their gaze up.

> Church & Murray is only TWO BLOCKS from the WTC, as opposed to where Jules Naudet was, 14 blocks away.

So?

> Why do you say that the sound we hear is the first plane hitting?

Why do you say that I say that?

> Does that sound even belong to the clip?

No, now that you bring it up. Slow-motioning a clip typically leaves the sound off. The sound is synthetic, added for dramatic purposes, and irrelevant to my argument.

> I don't have the Naudet film

Your nearest library does. It can also be watched at
thewebfairy.com/911/popcorn
then click
911 Televised Version.

> If the Naudets said that only one of them was at the scene, and both turned out to be there, it would show that they and the fire squad lied about that. If you find evidence of that, I'd certainly be interested to see it.

I've already posted the link to the footage establishing that they had to have had a second camera running at the instant of the 1st Hit, eleven blocks closer to WTC than Jules but on the same street as Jules.

The bit of narration about how the other brother (Gedeon) was still back at the firehouse at that moment, is I think at the start of dvd chapter 5. It is the whole basis of the major Separation Anxiety subplot that they scripted, wherein each brother thinks the other dead.

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

20th June 2006, 04:29 AM

orphia nay writes:

> Is it just me, or is anyone else wondering, IF the Naudets were 'in on a cover-up',

Which I argue they were, and which you haven't disputed my evidence or logic about.

> why wasn't Gédéon filming back-up footage of the impact, instead of supposedly filming the backs of a few people (when Jules was lucky to capture the impact at all)?

I think that's what you would call a fallacious "argument from incredulity." I would say they put one cam on the impact and another on our the victims' initial reaction simply because they wanted shots of both the impact and of our the victims' initial reaction. The Naudets were snuff film makers posing as respectable documentarians. I think they're in hiding now.

BY THE WAY, the Naudet-FDNY team DID shoot backup footage of the 1st Hit collision:

thewebfairy.com/911/pavel

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

20th June 2006, 04:49 AM

Andrew writes:

> Being a professional filmmaker myself...

Please be specific.

> you are pretty unprofessional if you spend time making a documentary and you don't have tape in the camera, don't have lots of battery life, and aren't ready to record whatever crazy thing might happen.

Yeah they had so much battery life that their lawyers' letter to Dylan Avery said they had 140 hours of footage from that one day!

It's not just that Jules Naudet was in the right place at the right time in the right way, it's that he was in the PERFECT place at the PERFECT time in the PERFECT way. He had traffic blocked around him, he already had his camera running BUT didn't have anything ELSE to film, he was in shade with the murder weapon in full sun, and he caught the instant of approx. 450mph impact in the middle of his lens view even though the murder weapon is only actually on camera for about one second - like throwing a bullseye dart with his camera aim.

> Documentary camera operators practically have their cameras grafted to their hands, to make sure they're always available.

So why is there no footage from Gedeon allegedly back at the firehouse at 8:46? Wasn't that a newsworthy moment? I say the narration lies; that he was at Church & Murray, filming
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
(just like he shot all the ADMITTED Church St. footage from LATER in the movie)
instead of still being back at the firehouse.

> Statistically... if the chance of someone capturing the hit was 1 million to 1, how many million people are in New York, and therefore how many people would have captured the hit?

However many people did. So far we know of three videocams running in NYC at 8:46 on 9/11, and all three of them were being used by Naudet-FDNY team.

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

20th June 2006, 05:33 AM

WildCat

20th June 2006, 05:46 AM

It's also a good idea to have a brother shooting auxiliary footage 11 blocks away from you at all times, but lie about it by saying he's somewhere else instead. Just to be on the safe side.

Ray Ubinger
But the brother doesn't show the plane hitting, nor the damage afterwards? Some backup that is!

Seems to me this is just footage from another day used to make the point that "nobody expected Sept.11". Quite common in a docmentary.

And Ray, try using the "quote" button when replying, it will make your posts much easier to read.

The_Fire

20th June 2006, 05:51 AM

The Fire writes:

> Personally, I always have an extra tape and fully charged battery in my pockets when I'm on a shoot. Even if I'm not the cameraperson. You know, just to be on the safe side.

Yeah, after all, you just never know--unless of course you're part of a plot--when history might change in an instant right in the middle of your lens view precisely when when you're done filming something else but your camera just happens to still be running.

It's also a good idea to have a brother shooting auxiliary footage 11 blocks away from you at all times, but lie about it by saying he's somewhere else instead. Just to be on the safe side.

Ray Ubinger
Before you get your panties in a twist, the reason why documentarists and many newscrews are carrying extra batteries and tapes are the fact that interviews/shoots sometimes exceeds the expected timeframes ESPECIALLY when doing a running documentary of a workday.

ETA: Also read wildcats answer.

Ray Ubinger

20th June 2006, 06:26 AM

WildCat writes:

> But the brother doesn't show the plane hitting, nor the damage afterwards?

Apparently his assignment was specifically to film the initial pedestrian reaction. Our the victims' first wince of fear and pain. The only known footage of pedestrian reaction at the INSTANT of the FIRST Hit. The clip is cut short before the cameraman presumably tilted up to film the immediate aftermath of the impact.

> Some backup that is!

It's obvious why they deliberately cut it short. So they wouldn't have to invent ANOTHER cover story, to explain why they had ANOTHER camera filming within sight of WTC at 8:46.

reminders:

famous 1st Hit IMPACT footage was shot by JULES Naudet at Church & LISPENARD

obscure 1st Hit PEDESTRIAN REACTION footage was shot by GEDEON Naudet at Church & MURRAY. eleven blocks closer to WTC on the SAME STREET, by the very BROTHER of the cameraman of the FAMOUS 1st Hit impact footage - an amazing coincidence that they were even on the same street (much less both filming), since they were 11 blocks apart and apparently didn't have cell phones (or else the whole Separation Anxiety subplot could never get off the ground)

> Seems to me this is just footage from another day used to make the point that "nobody expected Sept.11". Quite common in a docmentary.

Using ACTORS in STAGED RE-ENACTMENTS without TELLING us they're re-enactments, is a common DOCUMENTARY practice? Is that what you mean? Well, such hypothetical deception would still not explain how they got the same part of the same street to look just like it did around 9:15, when more footage of it appears.
tinyurl.com/dvxft
(a comparison pair of screenshots by Marcus Icke taken directly from the Naudet dvd)

note several matching TEMPORARY background details like

construction rubble on ground in middle of street, including individually matchabe rubble pieces

yellow caution tape tied to trash can in middle of street

contruction scaffolding on sidewalk, marked by blue top, interrupted by white sign

busy street blocked

In short, too many matching TEMPORARY background details, matching to KNOWN footage from that same spot on that same day, to have even been a re-construction. (That said, even a re-construction, WITHOUT TELLING US, would at least be dishonest filmmaking.)

> And Ray, try using the "quote" button when replying, it will make your posts much easier to read.

I tried that, but when I do it that way I can't figure out how to trim the original down to just what I want to reply to.

Ray Ubinger

atari24

20th June 2006, 06:50 AM

I tried that, but when I do it that way I can't figure out how to trim the original down to just what I want to reply to.

Ray Ubinger

Highlight text you don't want, and press the Delete key on your keyboard. The Backspace key works as well.

Gravy

20th June 2006, 08:33 AM

Ray, again, what makes you think that the clip shows the reaction to the first plane hitting? Remember, these people are two blocks away. The two women in the foreground don't even flinch involuntarily from the plane supposedly roaring overhead and exploding. Not likely.

You didn't answer my question: do you know if the audio is original to the clip? We've seen a recent instance of fake audio being added to a tape of the south tower collapse.

Where are the cars, trucks and buses? Church street at 8:46 a.m. on a weekday is one of the busiest places in Manhattan. It is HAMMERED with traffic, including hundreds of buses.* Traffic runs in the direction the cameraman is walking, north. It would be virtually impossible to take that shot on a normal day and not see vehicles. Instead, we see NO vehicles, and a lot of people walking in the street. Those conditions just don't happen unless the road is blocked off. Do you have evidence that Church Street was blocked off for some reason?

There is debris on the street. It's not construction debris. Construction workers don't just throw debris onto one of the busiest streets in New York. Someone appears to have a placed a trash can in the street as a warning or a marker. Again, not something you'd see on a normal day.

So, very little – and inconsistent – reaction, no vehicles, people in the street, debris in the street.

Unless you've got something else, your "evidence" is unconvincing, to say the least.

*ETA: Church Street is hammered with traffic today, with no WTC there. It was worse in 2001.

Arkan_Wolfshade

20th June 2006, 08:34 AM

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

This 3-4-second segment runs from 2:14 to 2:18 on the DVD clock.

Source DVD? What is filmed immediately prior and immediately after? Evidence this is Naudet footage?

It seems unassuming at first. They don't call attention to it.

Assuming it is Naudet footage, for the sake of argument, if it was taken on that day it has relevence, but unless they had/have an agenda there is no reason for them to call attention to any specific part of their footage from that day.

And the specific location is unknown.

It should be knowable. Any resident NYCers recognize the street and/or buildings?

But when you examine it, it turns out to
be:

the only known footage of pedestrian reaction to FIRST hit at the INSTANT the first hit happened.

Examination of only this footage can not lead to this conclusion. Evidence you, or someone, has examined all available footage from that day and verified that this is the earliest (chronologically speaking).

This proves the Naudets had foreknowledge -- the foreknowledge required
to have had a second camera up and running at 8:46 a.m., AWAITING the
initial crowd reaction to the event which was ABOUT TO occur.

The only thing this proves is, if this is Naudet footage, that they had a camera filming that location, at that time. It does not establish motive, or foreknowledge.

The first camera that they had running at 8:46 a.m., the one we all
know about, was Jules' camera at the gas leak (Church & Lispenard
intersection). So this second camera was evidently operated by Gedeon.

Evidence? You can not assume that Gedeon was operating the camera for this footage.

In further support of this, note that the movie shows no 8:46 a.m.
footage from the firehouse, where the movie claims Gedeon was at
8:46 a.m. That was a huge moment, a multi-alarm call for almost everyone
who was still at the firehouse to get the heck over to the WTC. Gedeon
should have found that firehouse moment interesting enough to film, if he
had really been at the firehouse at 8:46 a.m.. But we see now that he
simply wasn't in the firehouse at that moment. We see now that at
8:46 a.m., Gedeon was out on some sidewalk getting this shot instead.

Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. Do any of the firemen from that firehouse claim he was not there at, or around 8:46 AM?

Note that this shot is inserted right AFTER the fireman looks skyward at
the odor-of-gas call, which, we learn later (in the fuller version of the
odor-of-gas scene), is when the first hit was happening. And, this shot
is inserted right BEFORE some OTHER shots of crowd reactions to
the hits. Therefore by context alone, this is a shot of pedestrian
reaction to one of the hits.

Editing does not necessarily keep chronological order of footage. The point of editing is to make it watchable/convey information/contiuity/flow/etc

But, this shot STARTS with NOBODY looking up. Therefore it is NOT a shot
of reaction to the SECOND hit. By the time the second hit was about
to happen, practically EVERYONE was STANDING STILL and STARING UP.

There was only one time on that day when people were walking along
normally and then all of a sudden a wave of them whirled to look up.
That time was 8:46 a.m.

Again, editing does not always retain chronological order. You need to provide evidence that this is not just a result of the editing floor.

I count at least three people suddenly whirling their gaze around and/or up:

1. white man in left foreground in gray T shirt and dark shorts; trying
to figure out exactly where to look up at.

You are assigning more information than you can possibly know. All you can claim here is "white man in left foreground in gray T shirt and dark shorts looking up and moving his head"

2. white man in dark business suit carrying briefcase in left hand;
though blurry, you can see his jaw starts to drop open on his very
concerned-looking face.

Unless you can see something on the DVD that is not visible in the stills/flash on your site I do not see how you can claim to make out the expression on the man's face.

3. thin black woman in middle/background (somewhat blurry, possible
Condi Rice lookalike)

Trying to poison the well?

, with long sleeved medium blue shirt and wearing
a backpack. She was walking basically away from the camera, but before
the clip is over we see her whirling around leftward, basically toward
the camera, pivoting on the balls of her feet in mid-stride.

In summary, I repeat that this unassuming little 3-4-second snippet is a
shot of FIRST-hit reaction at the INSTANT the first hit happened -- and
the existence of such footage PROVES FOREKNOWLEDGE on the part of
the moviemakers.

You have provided no evidence showing the Naudets had knowledge that the events were going to happen, when they would happen, where they would happen, or where to set up specifically to film them.

Regnad Kcin

20th June 2006, 08:38 AM

Lord, not another one.

Mr. Ubinger, have you ever been to NYC? While the Twin Towers were still standing?

gumboot

20th June 2006, 09:33 AM

Andrew writes:

> Being a professional filmmaker myself...

Please be specific.

I have been working in the film industry in New Zealand for six years, including working on feature films, television, documentaries, short films, music videos, telefeatures... and so forth.

I've worked with a multitude of video formats, 8mm film, 16mm film, and 35mm film.

I've worked in the following departments:
Art Department
Production
AD Department
Camera
Lighting/Electrics
Cast
Unit
Creative (Producer/Director/Writer)
Sound
Post-Production

Yeah they had so much battery life that their lawyers' letter to Dylan Avery said they had 140 hours of footage from that one day!

140 hours for one day? Or 140 hours for the entire documentary? Because some of their footage was pretty clearly recorded post 9/11.

-Andrew

gumboot

20th June 2006, 10:02 AM

The_Fire

20th June 2006, 10:04 AM

gumboot: Nice. I never had the pleasure/frustration of working with cells. Me, that's only various videoformats.
BTW: have you tried the Ikegami backparts? Those rocks. That is if you get the correct fronends. Otherwise they are as out of balance as a CT in an evidence based discussion.

The_Fire

20th June 2006, 10:10 AM

Having looked at the sellections of footage, I'm not even convinced they were taken on the same day, let alone the same time of day. The lighting and shadow levels vary greatly, and the white balance in some is way off, with a distinct blue hue. This is a tell tale sign that it's at a different time of day.

The shot that "looks up to the towers just after the plane hit" is quite clearly looking up well after a plane hit, judging by the extent and colour of the smoke. Whatever's burning, I can't even be sure its either of the Twin Towers... the grey smoke makes me want to suggest its WTC7 burning some time in the afternoon.

As for the first WS of the street with the rubble on the road, yellow tape, and zero traffic (in rush hour??? right). It should be fairly easy for a local to identify the location and direction of the shot.

From that we can calculate if the directions for the WTC and the time of day match.

-Andrew
That would be the way of going about it, AFAIK: Shoot cover-shots over several days to accentuate the story and to cover the sound editing/voiceovers. Nothing new or extraordinary there. And no, it's not obfuscation.
What people tend to forget is that the Naudet's weren't there specificly to shoot 9/11 but a story about a rookie at a firestation. I have no idea on how they were spinning the original story, but I would personally send a camera man out to get various shot of the city/area the story takes place in for the already mentioned reasons (accentuating/cover shots).
It's also not uncommon to have more than one cameraman on this sort of project, particulary when dealing with an as unpreditable line of work as firefighters, since one just never know when the "golden" shot happens.

ETA: Some of my response only made it to my brain.

gumboot

20th June 2006, 10:19 AM

Fire:

Can't say I've actually ever come across Ikegami. We have a fairly low range of video camera brands here - almost exclusively Sony and Panasonic at the professional end.

I know what you mean about balance! We did a cheapy shoot with some Sony DVCAMs and it was fine with the three-battery pack on it, but one battery? Hopeless.

-Andrew

Ray Ubinger

20th June 2006, 11:14 AM

Highlight text you don't want, and press the Delete key on your keyboard. The Backspace key works as well.

Okay I'm trying "Quote" again, instead of "quick reply", and I agree I can now trim down what YOU wrote, but, the part you yourself were responding to (where I said I was confused about quote-in-reply) has disappeared completely.

Thanks for trying to help me. I'm trying to apply what you're suggesting, it just still doesn't work for me as cleanly and completely as quick-reply.

Ray Ubinger

Hawk one

20th June 2006, 11:25 AM

The reason that quotes within quotes doesn't appear is to minimise the amount of posts where the quotes together take up far more place than the reply. Imagine if a quoted exchange went on for ten posts and both parts were too lazy to delete the previously quoted posts... I'm very glad I don't have to wade through a lot of that. (And yes, a lot of posters are that lazy.)

Anyway, you can also just use [ quote ] and [ /quote ] (without the spaces to create a quote tag. Once you get used to writing it, it won't take any time at all to put in.

EDIT: My first paragraph is rather confusing, so I'll try and provide an example of a good, clean argument where quoting inside posts aren't taken away:

Yes, it is!No it isn't!Yes, it is!No it isn't!Yes, it is!No it isn't!Yes, it is!No it isn't!Yes, it is!No it isn't!

You can see why one would like to avoid this happening, right?

Hellbound

20th June 2006, 11:32 AM

The reason that quotes within quotes doesn't appear is to minimise the amount of posts where the quotes together take up far more place than the reply. Imagine if a quoted exchange went on for ten posts and both parts were too lazy to delete the previously quoted posts... I'm very glad I don't have to wade through a lot of that. (And yes, a lot of posters are that lazy.)

Anyway, you can also just use [ quote ] and [ /quote ] (without the spaces to create a quote tag. Once you get used to writing it, it won't take any time at all to put in.

EDIT: My first paragraph is rather confusing, so I'll try and provide an example of a good, clean argument where quoting inside posts aren't taken away:

You can see why one would like to avoid this happening, right?
:hypnotize

Duuuuuude.....

Hawk one

20th June 2006, 11:41 AM

Sorry about that, Hunstman, but like I said, my original paragraph wasn't good communication. At least this time I think my message got across. Right?

Hellbound

20th June 2006, 11:45 AM

:)

I was just playing, referencing the fact that your nested quotes bears a remarkable similarity to the "hypnotism spinners" you always see in cartoons :)

Ray Ubinger

20th June 2006, 11:50 AM

Gravy writes:

> Ray, again, what makes you think that the clip shows the reaction to the first plane hitting?

Gravy, again, I think the thing that hit the first Tower was NOT a plane:

thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig/flashframe.jpg

missilegate.com

BUT, I am not interested in getting distracted away from discussing Gedeon Naudet's 1st Hit Pedestrian Reaction Shot. So I will pretend you asked, "What makes you think that the clip shows the reaction to the 1st Hit?" Answers:

The context and sequential placement within the movie
and
the fact that it STARTS with NOBODY looking up, with people just walking along normally, and then SUDDENLY at least three of the pedestrians look up or around.

Question back for you: What do you imagine we are supposed to think this clip WAS, if NOT a clip of pedestrian reaction at the instant of the 1st Hit? What do you think would be the Naudets' explanation of it? (Note: They don't in fact say anything about it -- they just show it, and just once, at the top of the sorta 'terror preview' montage early in the movie. The stuff right afterward is more pedestrians reacting, mostly dumbstruck, but THOSE clips all START with people looking up, they are AFTER the 1st Hit.)

> Remember, these people are two blocks away.

More like five, when you count all the over to where WTC-1 was. But yeah, they were fairly close. And when American Airforce Blob 11 came divebombing in at some 400+ mph, making whatever sound it made, they reacted.

> The two women in the foreground don't even flinch involuntarily from the plane supposedly roaring overhead and exploding. Not likely.

Again, the clip appears on the dvd itself in SLOW MOTION. It is showing only about the first HALF SECOND of people's INITIAL jolt of reaction to the sound of the 1st Hit. Naturally some people react faster than others, but certainly everyone else also reacted after the brief clip ends. And I have no idea what sound, IF ANY, American Airforce Blob 11 made prior to impact. Even if the famous 1st Hit audio is to be believed, the flight sound was way quieter than the impact sound. The flight sound on the dvd is not a roaring or screaming jet sound. It is more like a high-speed but SINGLE-engine PROPELLOR sound, to my ear.

> You didn't answer my question: do you know if the audio is original to the clip?

I thought I talked about the audio of the clip
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
in a previous post in this thread.
I thought I said it strikes me as synthesized, added to the SLOW-MOTION (meaning usually soundless) clip by dramatic license, and that it is irrelevant to my analysis.

> Where are the cars, trucks and buses?

Blocked off, to the south of the camera. Same reason pedestrians are completely at ease walking out in the middle of the usually busy street.

> Do you have evidence that Church Street was blocked off for some reason?

Well I don't have evidence of the reason, but the clip shows clearly enough, as you yourself point out, that it must have been blocked. Also, though I regret I can't point to this as an excerpt, I have seen at least one snippet of footage (not in Naudet movie) that shows a flashing yellow light on a truck in the area where you and I agree the blocking of traffic would have had to be (just south of where the camera was).

> There is debris on the street. It's not construction debris. Construction workers don't just throw debris onto one of the busiest streets in New York. Someone appears to have a placed a trash can in the street as a warning or a marker. Again, not something you'd see on a normal day.

Yet there it is. And who knew this was anything but a normal day yet? Only the insiders. I still call it construction debris because that's what it looks like, complete with strewn rubble and with scaffolding on much of the sidewalk at that whole intersection.

Now, I was NOT going to bring this up, but if you really want to know more about the purpose of the debris and yellow tape and scaffolding, we at 911foreknowledge.com have connected it to the fact that "plane" debris from the 2nd Hit was planted at that very same intersection:
911foreknowledge.com/debris

> So, very little – and inconsistent – reaction, no vehicles, people in the street, debris in the street.

Very little and inconsistent reaction? You don't see at least three people suddenly whirling their heads around and/or up all at the same time? All within the first approx. half second of what they're reacting to?
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm

> ETA: Church Street is hammered with traffic today, with no WTC there. It was worse in 2001.

Not when it was blocked to vehicle traffic, as it clearly was in the Reaction clip, since as you yourself notice there's rubble and trashcans and pedestrians all in the middle of the street.

What is this ETA abbreviation, please? Edited To Add?

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

20th June 2006, 11:59 AM

DavidJames

20th June 2006, 12:17 PM

Ray:

I've developed a quick little questionnaire to help me understand the thought process of some posters, would you humor me by answering the few questions below?

1. Who shot JFK?
2. Who blew up the Murrah Building?
3. Did the U.S. land on the moon in 1969?
4. What are your thoughts on fluoride?
5. How did Marilyn Monroe die?
6. Are you concerned about the white trails you see coming from jets high in the sky?

Arkan_Wolfshade

20th June 2006, 12:35 PM

Regnad Kcin writes:

> Lord, not another one.

Not another what?

> Mr. Ubinger, have you ever been to NYC?

Yes. Why do you ask?

> While the Twin Towers were still standing?

Yes. I took pictures from the WTC-2 observation deck. Why do you ask?

Ray Ubinger

Please address post #32 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1714689#post1714689

Ray Ubinger

20th June 2006, 03:15 PM

Thanks gumboot/Andrew (preference?) for being specific about your film industry credentials at my request. What is the "AD Department," though? ADvertising, or is that A.D. like two words?

And now the part about the Naudet lawyers' letter. Here's where I'm still struggling with this forum's quote-in-reply. I hit Quote, but all it shows is your response to me, not my words that your response is to:

> 140 hours for one day?

Yes. Just like I said the first time (but that part won't quote for me). The Naudet lawyers' letter threatening Dylan Avery with a lawsuit, claims the Naudets have ONE HUNDRED FORTY hours of footage from that ONE DAY. Unfortunately for me, I can't find the letter itself on the Web anymore.

Ray Ubinger

Arkan_Wolfshade

20th June 2006, 03:20 PM

Ray Ubinger

20th June 2006, 03:28 PM

Arkan_Wolfshade

20th June 2006, 03:40 PM

Ray Ubinger

20th June 2006, 04:12 PM

Regarding
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
I wrote

>> This 3-4-second segment runs from 2:14 to 2:18 on the DVD clock.

Arkan Wolfshade writes:

> Source DVD?

The world-famous, Emmy-winning S11 mock-you-drama by the Naudet "brothers." Owned by probably every public library in America. Viewable online at
thewebfairy.com/911/popcorn
then click
911 Televised Version

> What is filmed immediately prior and immediately after?

Immediately prior is shown at
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld2.htm

Immediately after is more clips of pedestrian reaction, but, THOSE clips all start with people already looking up, which to me makes them NON-suspicious, POST-1st-Hit clips. The clip I discovered starts with people walking along normally, NOBODY looking up, but, DURING the clip, several people suddenly turn their gaze around and/or up. I submit that 8:46 a.m. was THE time of that day when that sequence of events would have happened.

> Evidence this is Naudet footage?

It is exclusive to their movie, appearing only there, nowhere else. Its background details exactly match admitted footage by Gedeon Naudet from later in the movie. Marcus Icke documented this by the following comparison pair of screenshots:
tinyurl.com/dvxft

>> [T]he specific location is unknown.

> It should be knowable.

It is now. That text is from 2004 when I discovered the clip. We have since nailed down the location exactly: east gutter of Church Street, between Park Place and Murray Street (closer to Murray than to Park), looking north and west at the west side of the Church-Murray intersection.
911foreknowledge.com/debris/spookcentral3.htm

>> [W]hen you examine it, it turns out to be: the only known footage of pedestrian reaction to the FIRST Hit at the INSTANT the First Hit happened.

> Examination of only this footage can not lead to this conclusion.

When else were pedestrians walking along normally, nobody looking up, and then suddenly they whirled their heads up or around to look somewhere new?

> Evidence you, or someone, has examined all available footage from that day and verified that this is the earliest (chronologically speaking).

Just being the earliest S11 footage of all wouldn't imply foreknowledge. But already having a camera filming people and capturing their reaction at that very instant, AND LYING ABOUT THE CAMERAMAN'S LOCATION AT THAT TIME, is nothing short of incriminating.

> The only thing this proves is, if this is Naudet footage, that they had a camera filming that location, at that time. It does not establish motive, or foreknowledge.

Don't forget they also explicitly say their second cameraman was still at the firehouse at 8:46. Half of this lie is because the truth is that he was filming initial pedestrian reaction with foreknowledge. The other half of the lie is a half-truth: they need to establish that he was SOMEWHERE other than where JULES was filming the famous 1st Hit impact. The reason they need to establish the brothers as being in different places when the **** hit the fan, is that that is the basis of the major Separation Anxiety subplot, in which each brother thinks the other dead.

> You can not assume that Gedeon was operating the camera for this footage.

I don't assume it, I figured it out, by the fact that there is ADMITTED footage by Gedeon later in the movie that's at the exact same location. See above comparison pair of screenshots by Marcus Icke. Gedeon is explicitly depicted as traversing up and down the same stretch of Church Street three separate times that morning. So there are positive verifiable reasons to think Gedeon shot it, and only one unverifiable reason to think he didn't, that being that the movie says (doesn't show) that he was still back at the firehouse. This makes Gedeon the obvious best guess for who filmed it. The only alternative would be some cameraman whom the movie never talks about and who sold the Naudets his footage and whose story has never been told.

> Do any of the firemen from that firehouse claim he was not there at, or around 8:46 AM?

Of course not, because that would undermine the carefully scripted lie that they were part of.

>> this shot is inserted right AFTER the fireman looks skyward at
the odor-of-gas call, which, we learn later (in the fuller version of the
odor-of-gas scene), is when the first hit was happening. And, this shot
is inserted right BEFORE some OTHER shots of crowd reactions to
the hits. Therefore by context alone, this is a shot of pedestrian
reaction to one of the hits.

> Editing does not necessarily keep chronological order of footage. The point of editing is to make it watchable/convey information/contiuity/flow/etc

I acknowledge that, but still stand by my statement at least until you can suggest what ELSE the Naudets, by their placement of the clip, might have meant for us to think it is footage of, if NOT pedestrian reaction to one of the Hits. Rewatch it with the leadup at
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld2.htm

> Unless you can see something on the DVD that is not visible in the stills/flash on your site I do not see how you can claim to make out the expression on the man's face.

It is clear enough to me on TV with frame enlargement. You're entitled to a different opinion if you get that far in checking it out for yourself.

>> 3. thin black woman in middle/background (somewhat blurry, possible
Condi Rice lookalike)

> Trying to poison the well?

I don't know what you mean. I simply described her so people can see her as the third person reacting. She's in mid-background in the middle of the street, appearing from behind Gray TShirt Guy as the camera moves forward.

Ray Ubinger

The_Fire

20th June 2006, 04:19 PM

The Fire writes:

> [T]he reason why documentarists and many newscrews are carrying extra batteries and tapes are the fact that interviews/shoots sometimes exceeds the expected timeframes ESPECIALLY when doing a running documentary of a workday.

So why ZERO footage from 8:46 a.m. at the firehouse where the Naudet movie narration says Gedeon Naudet was at that time? My view is that the narration is lying, that Gedeon was out filming at Church & Murray at 8:46. What's your view?

Ray Ubinger

Unsubstantiated claim from your side. Just because the footage weren't used, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
There are also the possibility that no footage were shot because Gedeon were still setting up. Indoor lighting is generally a pain in the rear if you are doing anything else than the basic 3-point interview setting.
Finally there are the possibility that Gedeon were there 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.
And as previously told: Just because it weren't used, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Ray Ubinger

20th June 2006, 04:38 PM

Andrew Gumboot writes:

> Having looked at the sellections of footage, I'm not even convinced they were taken on the same day, let alone the same time of day. The lighting and shadow levels vary greatly,

I've posted several bits of footage for different aspects of this conversation. Please specify two that I said were simultaneous but that you think might not have even been on the same day.

> and the white balance in some is way off, with a distinct blue hue. This is a tell tale sign that it's at a different time of day.

I know what you mean, but in this case it's actually just a sign of it being Gedeon Naudet footage. ALL his ADMITTED footage has the blue tint problem, throughout the movie. For example his 2nd Hit footage shot at Church & Vesey, with WTC-5 in the foreground:

911hoax.com/gNaudetWTC1_9.asp?intPage=46&PageNum=46
and
911foreknowledge.com/n2hit.htm

> The shot that "looks up to the towers just after the plane hit"

Be careful quoting from memory -- you won't catch me saying a plane was involved!

> is quite clearly looking up well after a plane hit, judging by the extent and colour of the smoke. Whatever's burning, I can't even be sure its either of the Twin Towers... the grey smoke makes me want to suggest its WTC7 burning some time in the afternoon.

Here I'm pretty sure you're referring to
911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm
which was shot from the same sidewalk vicinity as
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
but looking down Church St., not up it.

First of all the WTC-1 antenna is visible right above the base of the smoke trail. Second of all, there's no wall of smoke billowing up out of WTC-2 yet. Thirdly, no smoke trail anywhere near this massive, if at all, was ever filmed coming out of WTC-7. So,
911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm
is PRE-2nd-Hit footage.

> As for the first WS of the street with the rubble on the road, yellow tape, and zero traffic (in rush hour??? right).

What's a WS?? The reason there was zero traffic, except pedestrians casually walking in the middle of the street, is obviously because the street was blocked. The rubble and yellow tape--and scaffolding all over the sidewalks--is supposed to look like construction is going on, but I think it was to hide plantable "plane parts" to be unveiled at that same intersection, from behind the "construction mess," at the time of the 2nd Hit:
911foreknowledge.com/debris

> It should be fairly easy for a local to identify the location and direction of the shot.

Already done. The location and direction of
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
is:
east gutter of Church Street, shortly south of Murray Street, looking northward and westward at the west half of the Church-Murray intersection.

> From that we can calculate if the directions for the WTC and the time of day match.

Calculate away.

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

20th June 2006, 05:13 PM

The Fire writes:

> That would be the way of going about it, AFAIK: Shoot cover-shots over several days to accentuate the story and to cover the sound editing/voiceovers. Nothing new or extraordinary there. And no, it's not obfuscation.

No way was
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
shot AFTER 9/11: there's no Dust yet. After 9/11, that area looked like the following clips (unedited footage taped live that day by Tim Canale):
911foreknowledge.com/debris/peopleindust.htm

> What people tend to forget is that the Naudet's weren't there specificly to shoot 9/11 but a story about a rookie at a firestation.

BALONEY. That's just their COVER STORY. Their movie was intended to be about S11 all along, ever since they started filming in June 2001. That is my thesis. About this alleged rookie of theirs, "Tony Benetatos" -- for starters, he appears nowhere in the footage from the firefighter boot camp where they allegedly discovered him. Also, he never seen doing one lick of actual firefighting anywhere in the whole movie. An elaborate plot device seems to have been scripted specifically to keep him off camera for most of the big day. Also I've caught them INSERTING him into scenes. And he even gets a SINGING credit, of all things, at the end. One big happy show-biz family, those Duane St. "firefighters!" - including KNOWN TV ACTOR JAMES HANLON
imdb.com/name/nm0360137/
the fireman/narrator/interviewer/co-director who I think masterminded the movie.

> I have no idea on how they were spinning the original story, but I would personally send a camera man out to get various shot of the city/area the story takes place in for the already mentioned reasons (accentuating/cover shots).

Fair enough as a general point, but this doesn't hold water in the context of the Brave New World shot
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
I mean, why would you instruct the people you were filming to pretend they were reacting to something overhead? Especially if you were shooting it pre-S11, as you would have to be since the Dust isn't there yet?

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

20th June 2006, 05:19 PM

Hawk one writes:

> The reason that quotes within quotes doesn't appear is to minimise the amount of posts where the quotes together take up far more place than the reply.

That's too bad, because I'm careful about that and I still legitimately sometimes need to quote back more than one level.
> Anyway, you can also just use [ quote ] and [ /quote ] (without the spaces to create a quote tag.

Does that work for quoting back more than one level? Do I say
quote
quote
and then the second-back stuff
and then backslash quote
and then the first-back stuff
and then a final backslash quote?

Yow. For now I continue with this way that I'm sorry is uncustomary and possibly hard on people's eyes.

Ray Ubinger

Gravy

20th June 2006, 05:31 PM

Ray,

When you uncover this evidence:

1) That (in your version of events) Church St. from the WTC heading towards Murray St. was blocked off prior to 8:46 a.m. on 9/11

2) That Gedeon Naudet was on the scene at that time

3) That he filmed the scene you presented

4) That the audio is original to the clip you presented

Let me know.

Otherwise, take a hike. What you've presented so far is asinine. Do you really think that people here won't investigate your "research?" You're posting on a skeptic's forum.

Gah!

Ray Ubinger

20th June 2006, 05:36 PM

Arkan Wolfshade writes:

> Without knowing how many cameras they were running concurrently, we can make no judgement as to the viability of the 140 hrs claim.

"The tape was shot by TWO brothers, Jules and Gedeon Naudet. They're documentary filmmakers, and old friends of mine," says fireman-ACTOR James Hanlon after the terror-preview montage, 2-3 minutes into the movie.

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

(By the way, Hanlon then says, "The strange thing is, the tape--the whole story--it kinda happened by accident." That might be the most insidious line in the whole movie. "No, you slick son of a bitch," I want to say back to him, "the STRANGE thing is, the tape kinda happened on PURPOSE.")

Can anyone find the Naudet lawyers' letter to Dylan Avery anymore??

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

20th June 2006, 05:42 PM

>> [T]he reason why documentarists and many newscrews are carrying extra batteries and tapes are the fact that interviews/shoots sometimes exceeds the expected timeframes ESPECIALLY when doing a running documentary of a workday.

> So why ZERO footage from 8:46 a.m. at the firehouse where the Naudet movie narration says Gedeon Naudet was at that time? My view is that the narration is lying, that Gedeon was out filming at Church & Murray at 8:46. What's your view?

Arkan Wolfshade writes:

> My view is that your claim is unsubstantiated.

What's your view of why there's no footage from Gedeon Naudet at the firehouse at 8:46, if he is to be expected to have had his equipment always ready and if you believe the narration when it says that's where he was?

Also, why did Gedeon (according to the narration) WALK from there to WTC, instead of riding with the firemen whom he had been filming and hanging around with for months? Did no firemen drive from the 100 Duane St. firehouse to WTC in response to the 1st Hit?

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

20th June 2006, 05:56 PM

Ray Ubinger

20th June 2006, 06:07 PM

Gravy writes:

> Let me know when you uncover [the] evidence that (in your version of events) Church St. from the WTC heading towards Murray St. was blocked off prior to 8:46 a.m. on 9/11

Didn't you yourself admit there's no other way there'd be rubble and yellow tape and trash cans and casual pedestrians all out in the middle of the street?
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
Is it that you do you not yet see that that is Church-Murray?
Certainly you know my version of how we know that it was shot at 8:46.

> Let me know when you uncover [the] evidence that Gedeon Naudet was on the scene at that time

He's the obvious best guess, because
that footage was shot by someone
it's exclusive to their movie
they were a two-brother documentary team
we know where the other brother was
and the location exactly matches KNOWN footage of Gedeon's from later in the movie.

> Let me know when you uncover [the] evidence that [Gedeon Naudet] filmed the scene you presented

See previous answer.

> Let me know when you uncover [the] evidence that audio is original to the clip you presented

Gravy, this is now the THIRD time that I have specifically said I think the audio of
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
was SYNTHESIZED and OVERLAID for dramatic effect. I think you and Arkman Shadeguy may both be deliberately misreading me.

Ray Ubinger

Gravy

20th June 2006, 06:07 PM

Okay, You Knowingly Used A Video Clip With Fake Audio. You Knew That When You First Posted, But Failed To Mention It.

Some People Here Actually Give A Damn About What Happened On 9/11 And Don't Appreciate People Faking Evidence.

Get Lost, Creep.

edited for emphasis.

Gravy

20th June 2006, 06:15 PM

In case my last post wasn't clear, what I meant to say is,
"Get lost you despicable lying creep."

Ray Ubinger

20th June 2006, 06:26 PM

Gravy writes:

> Okay, You Used A Video Clip With Fake Audio

The clip's audio and visual are excerpted EXACTLY as they appear ON THE NAUDET DVD.

For the third time, you can watch the whole movie online at
thewebfairy.com/911/popcorn
then click
911 Televised Version

The clip in question occurs probably within the first five minutes, even counting the Nextel CEO's intro and Robert DeNiro's intro. Counting from when we see a seagull flying over the river and the WTC in the background, it's about 2 minutes and 10 seconds.

The audio sounds like more like THUNDER to me, than any kind of crash. Even I, who accuse the Naudets of being accessories to mass murder, have never regarded that audio snippet as anything but an OBVIOUS overlay. I have NEVER thought that it might be seriously intended to be taken as authentic audio of the 1st Hit. It has always struck me as a forgivable indulgence to dramatic license on the Naudets' part. That "forgivable" is coming from ME. I accuse them of heinous evil, but not for adding one brief, obviously fake sound for dramatic effect.

Slow motion normally doesn't have audio, so the Naudets (NOT I) added some thunderclappy track from some synthesizer to get the audience adrenaline going about how everything changed in that moment. I think this obsession you have with the audio on that clip may just be a diversionary tactic.

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

20th June 2006, 06:59 PM

Gravy writes:

> Do you really think that people here won't investigate your "research?"

I'm afraid they won't, but I'm hopeful they will.

> You're posting on a skeptic's forum.

So get skeptical about the Naudets and their corny scripted faux documentary already.

Get skeptical about why they faked Tony's attendance at the September 1, 2001 funeral of mysteriously deceased FDNY rookie Michael Gorumba
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/crowd.htm

Get skeptical about why they mirror-imaged the shot of Tony where the alleged funeral truck passes him
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm

Get skeptical about why Tony is never shown doing one lick of actual firefighting anywhere in the entire movie.

Get skeptical about his tall tale from Ground Zero wherein he alleges that he saw someone RUNNING AROUND while holding their own SEVERED-AT-THE-SHOULDER arm.
http://911foreknowledge.com/badbleed.htm

Get skeptical already, you alleged skeptic!

Ray Ubinger
newly empowered to post whole links :-)

Ray Ubinger

20th June 2006, 10:10 PM

David James writes:

> I've developed a quick little questionnaire to help me understand the thought process of some posters

What are your criteria for which lucky posters get your little questionnaire? Do you see yourself as treating them prejudicially as a class? Why don't you act like others here who go to the effort of raising some fair, intelligent questions about what I actually write, instead of crashing in with six huge off-topics for me to hop to out of the blue? I mean, if understanding my thought processes is really your goal?

Have you considered what you would do if you came to believe my thesis of the Naudet movie is correct?

Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

DavidJames

20th June 2006, 10:11 PM

Gravy

20th June 2006, 10:39 PM

Dear "Ray Ubinger,"

My family had friends on what you call "American Air Force Blob 11."

You have provided no evidence for your claims.

You're a despicable creep.

Get lost.

orphia nay

20th June 2006, 10:40 PM

Thanks for your comments, Wildcat, Fire, gumboot, Gravy and others.

Is it just me, or is anyone else wondering, if the Naudets were 'in on a cover-up', why wasn't Gédéon filming back-up footage of the impact, instead of supposedly filming the backs of a few people (when Jules was lucky to capture the impact at all)?

ophia nay was saying it would be suspicious if someone were filming within sight at the impact moment and didn't show us. I'm agreeing with that and arguing that that's exactly what Gedeon Naudet did on the east side of Church St. between Park Pl. and Murray St.

You're saying Gédéon filmed the backs of people at the exact moment of the impact and backup footage of the impact itself.

Would you like to buy some of my hyperdimensional windchimes? Only $79.95 plus p&p.

Church&Murray is 4 and a half blocks from 100 Duane St (the firehouse). Just because Jules said Gédéon was at the firehouse doesn't mean he knew his exact movements. It doesn't count as evidence of a cover-up if Gédéon walked 300metres while filming local street scenes. It doesn't even count as a 'lie'.

Ray, you are confusing 'get skeptical' with 'be gullible'.

gumboot

20th June 2006, 11:33 PM

Thanks gumboot/Andrew (preference?) for being specific about your film industry credentials at my request. What is the "AD Department," though? ADvertising, or is that A.D. like two words?

AD = Assistant Director. The AD Department are in charge of a film set.

Yes. Just like I said the first time (but that part won't quote for me). The Naudet lawyers' letter threatening Dylan Avery with a lawsuit, claims the Naudets have ONE HUNDRED FORTY hours of footage from that ONE DAY. Unfortunately for me, I can't find the letter itself on the Web anymore.

Convenient.

I'm going to call BS on this. I know for a fact the raw material for their doco was recorded on multiple days. Until I see this letter I'm going to assume the 140hrs is the TOTAL FOOTAGE RECORDED over the entire span of recording the doco.

Why would they demand retraction of only footage recorded on 9/11? That makes no sense whatsoever.

-Andrew

orphia nay

21st June 2006, 12:25 AM

By the way, I'm not convinced this footage was made at 8:46am.

Ray, can you tell us where Gédéon was said to be at the time of the North Tower's collapse? [Edited to Add: And the South Tower's collapse for that matter.]

(And I keep forgetting to say, the 'Condi Rice lookalike' looks like a man to me.)

orphia nay

21st June 2006, 03:05 AM

I have the Naudet's lawyers' letter saved to pc. While it does say "they shot 140 hours of video footage of that fateful day", it also says their footage was the only known film of the first plane strike. It must be added (I've read elsewhere) that they filmed hundreds of hours of film over the months they were filming, so it would be odd that 140 hours were in one day.

How many cameramen are listed in the film's credits, Ray?

The_Fire

21st June 2006, 03:27 AM

>>> [T]he reason why documentarists and many newscrews are carrying extra batteries and tapes are the fact that interviews/shoots sometimes exceeds the expected timeframes ESPECIALLY when doing a running documentary of a workday.

>> So why ZERO footage from 8:46 a.m. at the firehouse where the Naudet movie narration says Gedeon Naudet was at that time? My view is that the narration is lying, that Gedeon was out filming at Church & Murray at 8:46. What's your view?The Fire writes:

The Fire writes:

> Just because the footage weren't used, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

We're talking about a zillion-alarm call right where the supposedly prepared documentarian was hanging around with the alleged rookie-subject of the alleged documentary. The Naudets' whole alleged purpose was to document "a boy becoming a man." They got several shots of him reacting to previous calls which didn't turn out to be serious fires. If footage existed by Gedeon, allegedly still at the firehouse, at 8:46, why would it not be included in the movie?

Because it was of no interest to the story. The goalpost of the finished product changed with the attack. IT was no longer the story of a firefighter, but of the worst terror attack to be recorded in modern times. As such what happens back at the relative safety of the firehouse is of no interest. What happens out on the street is.
It's called an "Editorial Process".

> There are also the possibility that no footage were shot because Gedeon were still setting up.

Except somebody just got through telling me how prepared serious documentarians should be presumed to be, lots of extra tapes and extra batteries and so forth. I think this was what that experienced film pro Andrew Gumboot from New Zealand said.

Don't be an arse. Thats not what I'm talking about and you know it. I'm talking about shooting schedules and lighting.

> Indoor lighting is generally a pain in the rear if you are doing anything else than the basic 3-point interview setting.

Tell that to all the footage snippets that they shot from inside the firehouse BEFORE 8:30 a.m. that day! The morning shift coming in, the bacon and eggs on the griddle, the officer Dennis Tardio enjoying a quiet moment to himself ...

And? You still need to adjust lighting. You still need to check out who does what when. I offered explanations on the whys based on my own experience and not because I know the NAudets schedule by heart. There are more things going on behind the scenes of a shoot than what you seem to think. You don't just turn up with a camera and start filming and Voila! You have awardwinning footage.

> Finally there are the possibility that Gedeon were there 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.

The narration says that Gedeon sent Jules out at 8:30 to cover the alleged odor of alleged gas. Their alleged subject, the alleged rookie Tony Benetatos, was not on that call, he stayed back at the firehouse. Gedeon's job at that point, if he really was the only one of the two of them who was still with their alleged subject Tony at the firehouse, and if they really were serious about documenting Tony's boy-becomes-man story, would be to be stand ready to film any action arising with Tony. Not to go over their schedule coordinations or somesuch.

As I've said: There are more things going on behind the scenes of a shoot than you seem to know about. You've also just provided the deathblow to your theory about foreknowledge: Gedeon were there because they were waiting for action, in this case for the subject to be called out on something a bit more serious than a gasleak which weren't there.

Also you should say who you think filmed
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
at Church & Murray at 8:46, if you believe Gedeon was at the firehouse then.
The clip doesn't go away just because THEY don't say who filmed it.

Ray Ubinger

I'm not commenting on that since I don't know New York and as such cannot be certain that the clip is shot where you said.
That clip doesn't say anything except someone, one person looking at the sky. It doesn't show the reason why he's looking up, it doesn't show anyone else reacting and it doesn't show the date it was shot. The lack of dust mean nothing.
And you know absolutely nothing about the editing process, do you?

chran

21st June 2006, 03:50 AM

Question back for you: What do you imagine we are supposed to think this clip WAS, if NOT a clip of pedestrian reaction at the instant of the 1st Hit? What do you think would be the Naudets' explanation of it? (Note: They don't in fact say anything about it -- they just show it, and just once, at the top of the sorta 'terror preview' montage early in the movie. The stuff right afterward is more pedestrians reacting, mostly dumbstruck, but THOSE clips all START with people looking up, they are AFTER the 1st Hit.) Maybe we ARE supposed to think it's pedestrian reaction to the 1st hit, but what if it's not?

You said yourself it occured in a "terror montage" (I tried watching the 9/11-movie from your link, but I can't stand pixellated flash-movies) and it's common for film makers to re-contextualise footage to make a point. It's called editing. The only thing you have, are people looking up suddenly and you claim it's happening at 8:46am.

What is your basis for that claim? That people are looking up? People look up all the time. There, I just looked up. Does that mean I saw a plane hit the World Trade Center?

edit: Ok, so people don't look up and react with horror all the time. Unless they're looking at Dylan Avery. Ba-dum-tsji!

They could be looking at, and reacting to, the collapse of one of the towers.

The_Fire

21st June 2006, 03:57 AM

chran just saved me an edit.
Ray, what are the context? What are happening on either side of that clip?

Ray Ubinger

21st June 2006, 12:18 PM

writes:

> afraid to answer? [about JFK, Marilyn Monroe, OKC, chemtrails and more]

Afraid to let me stay on topic?

Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

Ray Ubinger

21st June 2006, 12:32 PM

Andrew Gumboot writes:

> AD = Assistant Director. The AD Department are in charge of a film set.

Thanks.

>> The Naudet lawyers' letter threatening Dylan Avery with a lawsuit, claims the Naudets have ONE HUNDRED FORTY hours of footage from that ONE DAY. Unfortunately for me, I can't find the letter itself on the Web anymore.

> Convenient.

For the Naudet lawyers, yes. Convenient for me would have been if the first google link had had the letter.

> I'm going to call BS on this.

I'm going to stand by my claim: the Naudet lawyers' letter to Dylan Avery said the Naudets have 140 hours of footage from the one day 9/11. Neither of us will be vindicated as long as the letter remains unfindable.

> I know for a fact the raw material for their doco was recorded on multiple days.

I never said it wasn't, and neither did the Naudet lawyers, and neither did I say they said so.

> Until I see this letter

down the memory hole

> I'm going to assume the 140hrs is the TOTAL FOOTAGE RECORDED over the entire span of recording the doco.

Several sources do say that very thing. But the Naudet lawyers' letter to Dylan Avery said they had 140 hours of footage from that one day.

> Why would they demand retraction of only footage recorded on 9/11?

They didn't, nor did I say they did.

I wonder why they made a big deal out of a little of Dylan's movie showing their footage. He doesn't even have anything bad to say about them. My site is almost entirely their footage, and I openly accuse the Naudets of being accessories to mass murder, but they apparently want to avoid drawing any attention to that kind of talk. To prove libel they would have to prove my accusation false, right?

Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

Gravy

21st June 2006, 12:38 PM

Still accusing people of being complicit in mass murder without evidence, Ray?
Take a hike, you despicable creep.

Ray Ubinger

21st June 2006, 12:39 PM

Gravy writes:

> My family had friends on what you call "American Air Force Blob 11."

You mean this Cessna-sized, missile-shaped thing that Jules Naudet photographed emitting an intense white light flash just before it hit Tower 1?
http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig/flashframe.jpg

> You have provided no evidence for your claims.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

Ray Ubinger

21st June 2006, 12:55 PM

Gravy wishes:

> Still accusing people of being complicit in mass murder without evidence, Ray?

Your refusal to see the extensive evidence at 911foreknowledge.com doesn't make it go away.

Your attempted explanation of why you got mad at me when you thought I'd added fake audio to a Naudet video clip, but you won't get mad at the Naudets now that I've clarified that's how the clip appears in their own movie:

none

Your attempted explanation for why the Naudets inserted alleged FNDY rookie Tony Benetatos into the 01SEP2001 funeral scene of mysteriously deceased (28AUG2001) FDNY rookie Michael Gorumba

http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/crowd.htm

none

Your attempted explanation for why Tony's not to be seen doing one lick of actual firefighting anywhere in the entire movie:

none

But you dislike me and call me a despicable creep, so that's supposed to make me think you're right that I have no evidence? Argument from Intimidation.

Ray Ubinger

Gravy

21st June 2006, 01:02 PM

Ray Ubinger

21st June 2006, 01:08 PM

The Fire writes:

> Ray, what are the context? What are happening on either side of that clip?

As I wrote in post #52 in response to Arkan Wolfshade's post #32:

"Immediately prior is shown at
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld2.htm

"Immediately after is more clips of pedestrian reaction, but, THOSE clips all start with people already looking up, which to me makes them NON-suspicious, POST-1st-Hit clips. The clip I discovered starts with people walking along normally, NOBODY looking up, but, DURING the clip, several people suddenly turn their gaze around and/or up. I submit that 8:46 a.m. was THE time of that day when that sequence of events would have happened."

Incidentally, notice the inexplicable shot of Trinity Church, just south and east of WTC, injected between the orange-shirted camera-toting teenage boy and the helmet-touching fireman:

http://tinyurl.com/k5rtx
aka
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/prod/dialspace/town/pipexdsl/q/aqrf00/ubinger/trinity_church.jpg

I suspect this is an inside joke meaning that Evan Fairbanks, famous "directly underneath" 2nd Hit videographer who came out of nearby Trinity Church STUDIOS shortly after the 1st Hit, was in collusion with the Naudet-FDNY snuff film propaganda team.

Ray Ubinger

60hzxtl

21st June 2006, 01:16 PM

Incidentally, notice the inexplicable shot of Trinity Church, just south and east of WTC, injected between the orange-shirted camera-toting teenage boy and the helmet-touching fireman:

I suspect this is an inside joke meaning that Evan Fairbanks, famous "directly underneath" 2nd Hit videographer who came out of nearby Trinity Church STUDIOS shortly after the 1st Hit, was in collusion with the Naudet-FDNY snuff film propaganda team.

Darn that Trinity Church for not getting out of the way!

You will have to bring the current archbishop of Canterbury into the conspiracy, since Fairbanks was there to shoot him that day, when he was only the bishop of Wales. I see the Bishop got a promotion.

Ray Ubinger

21st June 2006, 03:42 PM

>> http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld2.htm
>> Incidentally, notice the inexplicable shot of Trinity Church, just south and east of WTC, injected between the orange-shirted camera-toting teenage boy and the helmet-touching fireman:
>> http://tinyurl.com/k5rtx
>> I suspect this is an inside joke meaning that Evan Fairbanks, famous "directly underneath" 2nd Hit videographer who came out of nearby Trinity Church STUDIOS shortly after the 1st Hit, was in collusion with the Naudet-FDNY snuff film propaganda team.

60hzxtl writes:

> Darn that Trinity Church for not getting out of the way!

I'm not sure I follow you. Do you mean out of the way of what would otherwise have been more live footage of the 1st Hit murder weapon in flight, up and to the left behind where Trinity Church is in that shot?

I myself was not going so far as to speculate that the Trinity Church shot was taken at 8:46 a.m. on 9/11. But now that I look again, the clearness of the sky and the angle of the shadows, to my eye at least, do at least seem consistent with, though not otherwise indicative of, such a conclusion.

> You will have to bring the current archbishop of Canterbury into the conspiracy, since Fairbanks was there to shoot him that day, when he was only the bishop of Wales.

I'm not even sure that Fairbanks himself was in on it. There's just this tantalizing clue with the inexplicable Trinity Church shot insertion, and then Fairbanks as the only S11 connection to Trinity Church that I know of.

Can you offer some non-sinister yet evidence-based guess what the Trinity Church shot is doing there in the Naudet movie? The Naudet story never depicts either brother as going farther south than WTC-1.

Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com

Ray Ubinger

21st June 2006, 04:00 PM

My # 1 fan Gravy writes:

> You can prove that you're not [a despicable creep] by going and gathering actual evidence that supports your claims [that the Naudets are accessories to mass murder].

Just like Bush does when he goes to war against whomever he wants? Well, you concede for starters that the Naudets are at least bald-faced liars, for having doctored their own footage in at least the following four clips, right?

1.
http://911foreknowledge.com/tony/clocks.htm
(dubbing audio from one TV clip over the TV visual of a different clip)

2.
http://tinyurl.com/5h9bw
aka
http://www.911hoax.com/gNaudetWTC1_9.asp?intPage=46&PageNum=46
(cutting out roughly 1 second of video from the middle of their 2nd Hit clip; see also
http://911foreknowledge.com/n2hit.htm
)

3.
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/crowd.htm
(faking Tony Benetatos' attendance at the 01SEP2001 funeral of mysteriously dead FDNY rookie Michael Gorumba)

4.
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm
(mirror-imaging the shot to make the truck be going in the "correct" direction, consistent with the direction of the real funeral procession)

And you were already real angry at the Naudets because of how you think they deceptively added fake audio to the clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
right?
Or was that just a prejudicial anger against me in particular, when you thought I had done the audio addition, and now that you know it was the Naudets, the evidence can be ignored instead of being used to castigate?

Ray Ubinger

gumboot

21st June 2006, 04:24 PM

I wonder why they made a big deal out of a little of Dylan's movie showing their footage. He doesn't even have anything bad to say about them. My site is almost entirely their footage, and I openly accuse the Naudets of being accessories to mass murder, but they apparently want to avoid drawing any attention to that kind of talk.

I hate to burst your bubble, but chances qare they either don't know or don't care about your accusations, simple as that.

In contrast Loose Change is making its creator's a chunk of money, is widespread, and it completely misrepresents the firemen interviewed by the Naudet brothers, claiming they themselves believe the Towers were brought down by demolition.

Given the FDNY reaction to events post 9/11 it is absolutely clear they do not believe this at all.

These firemen agreed to give interviews to the Naudet brothers, no doubt on condition or good faith. Loose Change is violating that good faith by misrepresenting them.

The Naudet brothers have a responsibility to the firemen, aside from anything else, to have that footage removed. (In fact, were it not removed, the fireman could consider civil action against the Naudet brothers AND Loose Change for false representation)

-Andrew

Ray Ubinger

21st June 2006, 04:34 PM

orphia nay:
>>> It would be suprising if he had been within view of the crash and hadn't filmed the footage.
If he was there at the time but did not film the footage, but still went on to make his film of the rescue efforts on that day, you can bet he would still be under Raphael's spotlight, for Raphael would know he had been within view of the crash and would find it suspicious.

Ray Ubinger:
>> ophia nay was saying it would be suspicious if someone were filming within sight at the impact moment and didn't show us. I'm agreeing with that and arguing that that's exactly what Gedeon Naudet did on the east side of Church St. between Park Pl. and Murray St.

orhpia nay writes:

> Thanks for your comments, Wildcat, Fire, gumboot, Gravy and others.

You're welcome. :)

> You're saying Gédéon filmed the backs of people at the exact moment of the impact and backup footage of the impact itself.

No, I'm saying

he filmed people (most from behind, some from front) at the exact moment of the impact, within sight of WTC
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm

AND
he filmed the impact aftermath from the same sidewalk vicinity (proving his first shot was within sight of WTC) but at least a moment later (long thick black smoke cloud present, initial tan-gray stalked mushroom cloud no longer present)
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm

BUT
he FAILED to show us any shot of the IMMEDIATE impact aftermath, which he would have been able to film if he had just tilted up after the first of the above two clips.

I am AGREEING with you that footage taken within sight of WTC at the instant of the 1st Hit, but failing to show the immediate 1st Hit aftermath, qualifies as highly suspicious.

> Would you like to buy some of my hyperdimensional windchimes? Only $79.95 plus p&p.

Pretty pricey for something I've never heard of. Can you throw in a clip of alleged firefighter Tony Benetatos doing some actual firefighting somewhere in the Naudet movie?

> Church&Murray is 4 and a half blocks from 100 Duane St (the firehouse). Just because Jules said Gédéon was at the firehouse doesn't mean he knew his exact movements.

Hanlon the NARRATOR says Gedeon was at the firehouse at 8:46. This narration wasn't released until 6 months after the fact, during the 10MAR2002CBS premier. That's plenty of time to get the narrative right, seeing as they all miraculously survived. GEDEON HIMSELF says he walked (why didn't he RIDE??) to WTC from the firehouse at 8:46.

> It doesn't count as evidence of a cover-up if Gédéon walked 300metres while filming local street scenes.

Nor did I say it did. But Gedeon and the narrator say that didn't start happening until after 8:46.

> Ray, you are confusing 'get skeptical' with 'be gullible'.

I show you Tony Benetatos edited in to the Gorumba funeral scene
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/crowd.htm
and I show you the truck passing him having to be mirror-imaged so as to match the direction of the rest of the funeral procession
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm
and you still think the NON-gullible conclusion is that Tony was really there?

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

21st June 2006, 05:34 PM

orphia nay writes:

> I'm not convinced this footage was made at 8:46am.

Assuming you mean the footage
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
here are my supporting points again:

1.
BY HOW THE NAUDETS THEMSELVES SUGGESTIVELY PLACE IT in the 'terror preview montage,' it is immediately after the fireman at Church&Lispenard touches his helmet. Later, in the full version of the Church-Lispenard scene (the Alleged Odor of Alleged Gas), we are shown that that helmet-touch was immediately prior to the 1st Hit impact.
http://tinyurl.com/6zx44 (short but possibly broken)
http://911foreknowledge.com/odorofgas.htm (big)

2. If it been taken before 9/11, it would raise so-far unanswered questions about how that locale still looked so similar on 9/11, down to individually identifiable pieces of rubble strewn next to trash cans with yellow tape tied to them in the middle of the street, as well as the question of what coincidence resulted in them filming a spot that Gedeon admittedly would be the cameraman for sometime between 2nd Hit and 1st Collapse
http://tinyurl.com/dvxft
--not to mention, what would the people have been reacting to if it was pre-S11, and further, why would the Naudets show a non-S11 reaction and let us think it was a reaction on S11 by how they feature it so prominently at the start of their S11-terror preview sequence?

3. If it had been taken between 8:47 and 1st Collapse, it would not have begun the way it does, with NOBODY looking up, with everyone just walking along normally.

4. If it had been taken between 1st Collapse but before Cleanup (days if not weeks later), it would have been all dusty.

5. If it was taken after Cleanup, it would not have still had individually matchable pieces of rubble still strewn next to the same waste cans tied to the same yellow tape out in the same middle of the same busy but still-blocked street.

6. Any excuse that it was a re-enactment (regardless of timing contradictions still in effect from the above logic), would just add more weight to the evidence of general deception by, general LIARHOOD of, the Naudets, as already substantiated by me with several proven moments of them doctoring their own footage, including inserting their subject into scenes he wasn't really at.

> Ray, can you tell us where Gédéon was said to be at the time of the North Tower's collapse? [Edited to Add: And the South Tower's collapse for that matter.]

It is far from clearly said. When the ST collapsed he seems to be a ways (mile? half mile?) north, filming & walking toward WTC as the panicked crowd streams past him in the other direction. See the SECOND of the TWO clips at
http://911foreknowledge.com/soldier3.htm

When the NT disintegrated his location was either nearby the NT or else already back at the firehouse. It is kind of skipped over, although he definitely is back near the NT after the ST disintegration. See
http://tinyurl.com/jjsd2

Why do you ask?

> [T]he 'Condi Rice lookalike' looks like a man to me.

You're certainly entitled to that opinion, especially at the small scale of the excerpt on a computer page. I'd be fine with calling her "backpack person" until you view it larger when I think you'll agree she's a she. The point is, there are several people suddenly reacting to something above them within sight of the WTC, and the background details are extremely consistent with how that location looked within the next hour that morning (between 2nd Hit and 1st Collapse).

Ray Ubinger

chran

21st June 2006, 11:58 PM

orphia nay writes:
> I'm not convinced this footage was made at 8:46am.

Assuming you mean the footage
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
here are my supporting points again:

<snip>

3. If it had been taken between 8:47 and 1st Collapse, it would not have begun the way it does, with NOBODY looking up, with everyone just walking along normally. Why not?

Not everybody was looking at the burning towers all the time. Besides, you can see the cameraman beginning to pan left in the end of the shot.

My guess is that it shows audience reaction to one of the towers beginning to fall.

orphia nay

22nd June 2006, 01:49 AM

Chran, thanks, you beat me to it.

It would very difficult to get where you need to be in the event of a major city emergency without looking where you're going.

I count 5 out of 8 people visibly looking up in the same direction within the second or so of footage before it ends, and one other has just turned his head a bit in the same direction.

To add:
"When the first plane hit, Gedeon was at the firehouse. With three other firefighters, he went to the World Trade Center, and, like Jules, was within a block of Tower 1 when it collapsed."
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/culture/tv/programs/naudet911.html

orphia nay

22nd June 2006, 02:47 AM

Actually, it is very difficult to get anywhere without looking where you're going.

Ray, did you run as a Libertarian candidate and lose the two party election for the North Carolina State Senate District of Durham in 2004 with 9.76% (http://www.cs.duke.edu/~justin/voting/dat/2004/NC_STATE_SENATE_DISTRICT_20.html) of the votes?

orphia nay

22nd June 2006, 02:55 AM

Are you the same Ray Ubinger who is quoted as a reference in support of the Hologram Theory (http://www.gallerize.com/What_Is_The_Hologram_Theory.htm)?

"The hologram theory says that south tower (WTC2) was not hit by a large Boeing 767-200 (flight UA175) but by a small USAF cruise missile or drone with a large holographic cloak around it that made it look like a flight UA175, i.e. a flying deception."

gumboot

22nd June 2006, 04:20 AM

Are you the same Ray Ubinger who is quoted as a reference in support of the Hologram Theory (http://www.gallerize.com/What_Is_The_Hologram_Theory.htm)?

:eye-poppi

4. One type of UFOs are orbs. Orbs are round thingies like flying balls. On the morning of 9-11-1 orbs flew over the buildings of the WTC. Researchers believe that the orbs flying over the WTC had something to do with the attacks, such as the use of stealth technology.

Watch out for the round thingies.

:confused:

-Andrew

DavidJames

22nd June 2006, 04:29 AM

writes:

> afraid to answer? [about JFK, Marilyn Monroe, OKC, chemtrails and more]

Afraid to let me stay on topic?

Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.comI'm just trying to understand who we're dealing with.

I think it's become pretty clear, thanks for your help.

Orb

22nd June 2006, 05:42 AM

:eye-poppi

Watch out for the round thingies.

:confused:

-Andrew

OK, whoa! Keep us out of it. ;)

chillzero

22nd June 2006, 05:50 AM

Regarding
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
I wrote

When else were pedestrians walking along normally, nobody looking up, and then suddenly they whirled their heads up or around to look somewhere new?

I am writing...
Perhaps some time later when the documentary makers decided to get some people out on a street, and film them all suddenly looking up on cue. Sometimes these people are called 'actors', and even get paid for doing this. Sometimes film makers do this to add filler scenes and the correct atmosphere for points they are trying to make.

Seriously .. Copy, Paste and Delete are your friends; especially when invited to the big party thrown by The Quote Function.

60hzxtl

22nd June 2006, 05:56 AM

So I spent some time at Ray's site. It is one of the most amazing examples of making something out of nothing, and further, just because you don't understand something, does not mean you cannot comment on it authoritatively!

Ray sees mysterious CIA agents, (they wear the secret uniform of the CIA, a white shirt and tie!) firemen carry mysterious devices, there are "soldier-disguised-as-fireman" not to forget" WING-FLAPPING HOLOSHADOW" and lets not forget the cattle prods and the big ol' hypodermic needles!

So, Ray has made his life's work examining the Naudet Bros. film pixel by pixel. But Ray does not understand the simple grammar of film. Editing, sound overlaps, representative shots, are all typical. If someone shot 144 hours of film than Ray seems to think that all 144 hours must be in the film, be in focus at all times, and always be interesting and advancing the story line. Flipping a shot to avoid a jump cut, or make screen direction is fine - (see the funeral tangent) you are not altering the facts, just making the transition - its not like flipping a shot of plane 2 and its direction of travel so as to represent it as plane 1.

These are things learned by any first year film student. The bright ones get it. What you are looking at is not raw, unedited footage, in literal order, subject to cross examination, presented as evidence in a capital case. It is a collection of images and sounds put together to represent what happened that day, utilizing the images they had to illustrate the event.

Put another way, Ray has spent hours and hours, examining and exploring, and has no clue as to what he is looking at, or the context that it belongs in. He has made a website with moving images, written text to go along with it, yet it is still meaningless, because most of it is just wrong.

You can spend hours seeing faces in clouds, but they are still just clouds -- they aren't faces. You can grasp a lot of straws, and still not come away with anything besides a handful of straw. Lots of fiber, not much nutrition here.

Gravy

22nd June 2006, 09:24 AM

Ray,

Your whole theory relies on the idea that Church St. at Murray St. was closed to traffic before 8:46 a.m. on 9/11.

Prove it.

When you prove that, know where you'll be?

One step closer to not being a despicable creep.

Won't that feel good?

Ray Ubinger

22nd June 2006, 03:52 PM

Gravy

22nd June 2006, 04:01 PM

Gravy writes:

> Your whole theory relies on the idea that Church St. at Murray St. was closed to traffic before 8:46 a.m. on 9/11. Prove it.

You yourself insisted that traffic had to have been blocked in the clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
because of the rubble and trash cans and yellow tape and pedestrians all out in the middle of the street, didn't you? So, re-read my proof that the location of that clip is Church-Murray, and re-read my proof that the timing of that clip is 8:46 a.m. on 9/11, and if you find either of those proofs flawed, say why.

Ray Ubinger
No, Ray, If you had paid any attention you would know that I do not agree with you that the clip in question was taken when the first plane hit.

Stop your creepy whining and prove that Church Street was closed to traffic at 8:46 a.m. on 9/11/01.

Prove it.

Ray Ubinger

22nd June 2006, 04:19 PM

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

>> When else [besides 8:46 a.m. on 9/11] were pedestrians walking along normally, nobody looking up, and then suddenly they whirled their heads up or around to look somewhere new?

chillzero writes:

> Perhaps some time later when the documentary makers decided to get some people out on a street, and film them all suddenly looking up on cue.

No, because that part of that street stopped looking like that at 10:00 a.m. on 9/11, when the Dust coated it.

http://tinyurl.com/dvxft
(top: Church-Murray during 1st Hit, from Naudet movie
bottom: same location between 2nd Hit and 1st Collapse, also from Naudet movie)

http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/constructiondebris.htm
(two Naudet vid clips of same intersection pre-1st-Collapse)

http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/blockwalk.htm
(another Naudet vid clip of same intersection, plus Tim Canale archive footage of same intersection post-1st-Collapse)

And incidentally,
Church-Murray photographed by Nico Haupt in 2005:
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/4032/murray040425tl.jpg

By the time cleanup occurred days or weeks if not months later (and remember the movie was already broadcast by the 6-month anniversary), the rubble and trash cans and yellow tape all out in the middle of street would have been gone. They would not clean the dust off the street and then replace the rubble back onto the street.

> Sometimes these people are called 'actors', and even get paid for doing this.

Re-enactments that are put into a DOCUMENTARY without being CALLED re-enactments are called LIES.

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

22nd June 2006, 04:38 PM

Gravy

22nd June 2006, 04:50 PM

Gravy wrote:
>>> Your whole theory relies on the idea that Church St. at Murray St. was closed to traffic before 8:46 a.m. on 9/11. Prove it.

I wrote:
>> You yourself insisted that traffic had to have been blocked in the clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
because of the rubble and trash cans and yellow tape and pedestrians all out in the middle of the street, didn't you? So, re-read my proof that the location of that clip is Church-Murray, and re-read my proof that the timing of that clip is 8:46 a.m. on 9/11, and if you find either of those proofs flawed, say why.

Gravy writes:

> No, Ray, If you had paid any attention you would know that I do not agree with you that the clip in question was taken when the first plane hit.

When you wrote in Post #31:

"It would be virtually impossible to take that shot on a normal day and not see vehicles. Instead, we see NO vehicles, and a lot of people walking in the street. Those conditions just don't happen unless the road is blocked off."

you were referring to the shot
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
were you not?

Ray Ubinger

Try to pay attention, Ray. Did I not JUST say that I don't think that shot is of the reaction to the first plane strike? Have I not said that all along? Haven't I been asking you to prove that?

Did the Naudets insert that clip there for dramatic effect? I don't know, and I don't have the DVD. The televised version shows an even briefer clip. So what if they did? They'd be guilty of inserting a clip for dramatic effect, NOT GUILTY OF COMPLICITY IN THE MURDER OF THOUSANDS. GET IT?

I won't be holding my breath for your proof that Church & Murray was closed at 8:46 on 9/11/01.

Ray Ubinger

22nd June 2006, 04:51 PM

> Ray, did you run as a Libertarian candidate and lose the two party election for the North Carolina State Senate District of Durham in 2004 with 9.76% of the votes?

9.76% of the COUNTED votes. The Board of Rigged Elections openly admits falsifying the tallies on a routine basis. For instance they officially misreport that a dozen current office-holders in my county were elected UNANIMOUSLY.

Ray Ubinger
http://governyourself.com

Ray Ubinger

22nd June 2006, 05:32 PM

I wrote to Gravy:
>> When you wrote in Post #31:
>> "It would be virtually impossible to take that shot on a normal day and not see vehicles. Instead, we see NO vehicles, and a lot of people walking in the street. Those conditions just don't happen unless the road is blocked off."
>> you were referring to the shot
>> http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
>> were you not?

Gravy writes:

> Try to pay attention, Ray. Did I not JUST say that I don't think that shot is of the reaction to the first plane strike?

Yes, sir, you did just say that. And now that I've answered your question, please answer mine, which remains (try to pay attention):

You WERE referring to the shot
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
WHEN YOU WROTE,
"It would be virtually impossible to take that shot on a normal day and not see vehicles. Instead, we see NO vehicles, and a lot of people walking in the street. Those conditions just don't happen unless the road is blocked off."
WEREN'T you?

Yes, you were -- or No, you weren't?

Ray Ubinger

Gravy

22nd June 2006, 05:32 PM

The Board of Rigged Elections openly admits falsifying the tallies on a routine basis

Please provide a source for this claim.

DavidJames

22nd June 2006, 05:38 PM

> 9.76% of the COUNTED votes. The Board of Rigged Elections openly admits falsifying the tallies on a routine basis.
No kidding, got any links where they admit that?

Ray Ubinger

22nd June 2006, 05:45 PM

orphia nay writes:

> Are you the same Ray Ubinger who is quoted as a reference in support of the Hologram Theory?

Yes, even though I don't endorse that theory.

Ray Ubinger

Gravy

22nd June 2006, 05:48 PM

orphia nay writes:

> Are you the same Ray Ubinger who is quoted as a reference in support of the Hologram Theory?

Yes, even though I don't endorse that theory.

Ray Ubinger

No, but you endorse a theory that friends of my family were on a "blob" that hit the north tower.

Ray Ubinger

22nd June 2006, 05:52 PM

>> The Board of Rigged Elections openly admits falsifying the tallies on a routine basis. For instance they officially misreport that a dozen current office-holders in my county were elected UNANIMOUSLY.

> No kidding

Dead serious.
http://www.heraldsun.com/blogger/index.cfm?BID=134&ShowBlog=28

Sources:

Durham County Board of Rigged Elections
http://www.co.durham.nc.us/elec
(919) 560-0700

North Carolina Board of Rigged Elections
http://www.sboe.state.nc.us
(919) 715-1790

The Constitution of the State of North Carolina
http://statelibrary.dcr.state.nc.us/nc/stgovt/preconst.htm
Article I, Section 10: “All elections shall be free.”
Article VI, Section 1: “Every person born in the United States and every person who has been naturalized, 18 years of age, and possessing the qualifications set out in this Article, shall be entitled to vote at any election by the people of the State, except as herein otherwise provided.”
Article VI, Section 6: “Every qualified voter in North Carolina who is 21 years of age, except as in this Constitution disqualified, shall be eligible for election by the people to office.” Note that this Constitution does NOT disqualify anyone on the basis of failure to petition or failure to be pre-printed on the ballot.

The rig: North Carolina General Statute 163-123, enacted 1987:
http://www.ncleg.net/statutes/generalstatutes/html/bychapter/chapter%5F163.html
Note Section (f), which orders that certain votes for constitutionally eligible persons “shall not be counted for any purpose and shall not be recorded on the abstract.”

Ray Ubinger

22nd June 2006, 05:58 PM

Ray Ubinger

22nd June 2006, 06:08 PM

>> The Board of Rigged Elections openly admits falsifying the tallies on a routine basis

> Please provide a source for this claim.

Phone 919-560-0700
for the Durham County, North Carolina, Board of Rigged Elections
and ask them how a dozen current office holders got to have UNANIMOUS tallies, just like Saddam Hussein in 2002. They will straightforwardly admit that they simply discarded all votes cast for anyone else.

Gravy

22nd June 2006, 06:16 PM

Gravy

22nd June 2006, 06:21 PM

Gravy writes:

> [Y]ou [Ray Ubinger] endorse a theory that friends of my family were on a "blob" that hit the north tower.

No, I have never stated anything about where friends of your family ever were. I think NO people were on the Cessna-sized, missile-shaped thing that Jules Naudet photographed emitting an intense white flash just before it hit the north tower.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig/flashframe.jpg

http://missilegate.com

Ray Ubinger

Oh? You said a "blob" hit the north tower. These people were on flight 11, which hit the north tower, you despicable creep. Other friends of mine saw that plane hit from their office windows. Are they lying?

How about thie guy in this report? Is he lying? Why don't you look him up.

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://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780805076820&displayonly=EXC&z=y

Are you a professional creep, or is this a part-time gig?

ktesibios

22nd June 2006, 08:29 PM

You can find the complete text of North Carolina General Statute 163-123 here:

http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_163/GS_163-123.html

It specifies the procedures for qualifying as a write-in candidate. Here's the text of section f:

f)******* Counting and Recording of Votes. – If a qualified voter has complied with the provisions of subsections (a), (b), and (c) and is not excluded by subsection (e), the board of elections with which petition has been filed shall count votes for him according to the procedures set out in G.S. 163-182.1, and the appropriate board of elections shall record those votes on the official abstract. Write-in votes for names other than those of qualified write-in candidates shall not be counted for any purpose and shall not be recorded on the abstract.

(bolding mine).

The intent seems clear to anyone who can read standard English. It spares the boards of elections from having to count and publish write-in totals for Mickey Mouse, Elvis Presley, Lara Croft and so on.

This clearly doesn't apply to Ray's situation. If he had been an unqualified write-in candidate, none of the votes he received would have been counted, and yet he wound up with an official 9.76%.

He could have responded to getting hammered at the polls in a rational way, say, working at building up some recognition as a sane and intelligent candidate in preparation for another run, or aiming at some more achievable, lesser office to start building a credible resume for higher office. Instead he's trying to impose an idiosyncratic, delusional interpretation on state election law that lets him claim to be the victim of an eevil conspiracy- just like he's trying to impose a delusional interpretation on a documentary film that lets him accuse the filmmakers of being part of a conspiracy to commit mass murder.

It doesn't work, at least not for those of us who can recognize meaning in language, written or the visual language of film.

In a way it's a pity that, IIRC, to bring a libel action one has to demonstrate actual harm resulting from the libel. It saves a lot of vile cranks from getting the smacking they desperately deserve by virtue of the fact that they are delusional little nobodies whom noone will take seriously.

gumboot

22nd June 2006, 09:58 PM

Re-enactments that are put into a DOCUMENTARY without being CALLED re-enactments are called LIES.

That may be, but it's also very common. Ever heard of the world's first documentary? It's called Nanook of the North. Have a read about the "lies" in that film.

-Andrew

orphia nay

22nd June 2006, 10:25 PM

Very nicely posted, ktesibios.

September 2001 was a trying time for Ray. (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:CbtN82ze-bcJ:lists.mcclatchyinteractive.com/pipermail/nao-news/2001-November/000232.html+court+trial+jury+%22ray+ubinger+%22&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=2)

Lucky (http://durhamsavoyards.org/members/cast1998.html) he's got his acting career (http://triangleelections.blogspot.com/2004/08/senate-20-jeanne-lucas-d-v-ray-ubinger.html) to fall back on (http://durhamsavoyards.org/members/cast2006.html).

Of course, according to Ray's dodgic, James Hanlon couldn't be a real firefighter because he's had success as an actor since 9/11.

Ray, you could clear your name by honestly admitting your bias & errors and by pointing out for others where you've gone wrong. You would do more for the victims of that terrible day that way than you ever will with the delusional rantings you've been making since then. Do you really want to continue the way you are going? Do you feel that you are in too deep? You still have a choice.

Ray Ubinger

23rd June 2006, 05:17 AM

> [North Carolina General Statute 163-123] spares the boards of elections from having to count and publish write-in totals for Mickey Mouse, Elvis Presley, Lara Croft and so on.

It prevents the people from electing certain constitutionally eligible persons. It explicitly orders some votes cast by legally registered voters for constitutionally eligible persons to be thrown away.

Why should I have to petition for my vote to count if you don't have to petition for your vote to count? Were you just born better than me?

Ray Ubinger
http://governyourself.com

60hzxtl

23rd June 2006, 05:25 AM

Ray Ubinger

23rd June 2006, 06:10 AM

Regarding the timing of the clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
I wrote:
>> 3. If it had been taken between 8:47 and 1st Collapse, it would not have begun the way it does, with NOBODY looking up, with everyone just walking along normally.

chran writes:

> Why not?

"It was like the whole world stopped; everyone was just looking up." -- fireman Jamal Braithwaite in the Naudet movie, about his ride to WTC-1 in response to the 1st Hit

> Not everybody was looking at the burning towers all the time.

Maybe not quite everybody, but certainly somebody was. At the exact same sidewalk vicinity as the above clip, we see in the follow clip how motionless, transfixed, and staring up the crowd was between the 1st and 2nd Hits, like Braithwaite said (in fact the following clip appears when he's saying it):

http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.html

Also, change the 4 in that url to 1, 2, and 3 to see other shots of POST-1st Hit crowds (also on Church Street, I think, but some blocks farther north). Contrast the extremely high percentage of people who are standing still or looking up in those clips, to how ZERO people are doing so at the start of the clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm

> Besides, you can see the cameraman beginning to pan left in the end of the shot.

What do you figure from that? I figure the cameraman too is responding to the 1st Hit (though with foreknowledge), and is about to film the immediate aftermath of the 1st Hit--the stalked tan-gray downwardly-forming mushroom cloud which was left of (and up from) him.

> My guess is that it shows audience reaction to one of the towers beginning to fall.

No, because then it would have to be after the pre-1st-Collapse (no Dust yet) shots of the same street location as here:

http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/constructiondebris.htm

(Or for quicker comparison use this pair of still screens:
http://tinyurl.com/dvxft
)

The bravenewworld clip has to be earlier, by the lighting. Proof:

In both clips, the windows of the building (Emigrants Savings Bank) at the SW corner of Church-Murray, are casting a row of squarish light blobs down onto the middle of Church Street. This is westward morning sunlight reflected back eastward.

The row of squarish light blobs is FARTHER east in the EARLIER clip when the sun is LOWER and the angle of reflection more ACUTE:
http://911foreknowldge.com/bravenewworld.htm
(EARLIER)

The row of squarish light blobs is LESS easterly, farther WEST, in the LATER clips when the sun is HIGHER and the angle of reflection more OBLIQUE:
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/constructiondebris.htm
(LATER)

Ray Ubinger

60hzxtl

23rd June 2006, 06:24 AM

Ray Ubinger discovers editing and mistakes it for conspiracy.

gumboot

23rd June 2006, 07:09 AM

Just for everyone's info...

IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312318/maindetails) credits three cinematographers on this documentary...

-Andrew

60hzxtl

23rd June 2006, 08:45 AM

Just for everyone's info...

IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312318/maindetails) credits three cinematographers on this documentary...

-Andrew

And in no way, great as it is, is imbd infallible, or comprehensive - the info is gathered by bucket brigade.

There may well have been more shooters not credited as well-

(e.g. I am listed 6 times in imdb - but two of the films I did not work on at all, and there is one project I produced and directed, and only the writer is credited! Imagine! ):jaw-dropp

Regnad Kcin

23rd June 2006, 02:57 PM

Regnad Kcin writes:

> Lord, not another one.

Not another what?

> Mr. Ubinger, have you ever been to NYC?

Yes. Why do you ask?

> While the Twin Towers were still standing?

Yes. I took pictures from the WTC-2 observation deck. Why do you ask?

Ray UbingerI have debated my share of believers in alternate theories (usually, but not always, called Conspiracy Theories). You seem to fit the bill, as evidenced by your contributions to this thread. Hence, you are "another one."

As to my second two-part question, it was intended to determine if you had real-world (as opposed to second-hand) experience looking at the towers.

To that point, any suggestion (by you, Leslie Rapael, or others) that there was something extraordinarily suspicious about filmmakers capturing the first hit on the north tower is rather silly. I'll explain: The Twin Towers were so tall that their upper portions were quite easily visible to anyone at street level in Manhattan (and many surrounding points), unless the pedestrian's view was obstructed by nearby-to-the-viewer's-vantage-point buildings Because of the factors above, the Twins were often used to provide casual geographic reckoning for those traveling the city on foot, and sometimes by those in a motor vehicle The WTC was situated very near the south tip/end of the relatively narrow Manhattan island, meaning their north faces were what was primarily seen when obvserving them in the skyline NYC is the media communications capital of the world, meaning that at any time, day or night, there are people -- both professional and amateur -- engaged in work with still and motion cameras. In addition, there is a thriving professional film and television industry in NYC, often working outdoors. Too, there are at least two film schools, with students engaged in their projects, again, often outdoors There exists these days no small number of personal hand-held video cameras, cell-phone cameras, and digital still cameras. These are utilized quite regularly by tourists the world over, NYC of course being a major tourist destination The morning of September 11, 2001 was clear, sunny, and mild The sound of a jet traveling north to south along the western, Hudson River shore of the island would be striking, both due to its low-altitude proximity (volume) and uniqueness in the city's day-to-day cacaphonyA filmmaking team in NYC was/is not unusual. Being drawn to the roar of a low passing jet was/is not unusual. Being situated outdoors on Manhattan Island so that when looking up, one saw the upper north face of the Twin Towers was not unusual. Reacting to an unusual event in action by swinging one's camera to record that action is not unusual.

So what is unusual? I'm guessing you know my answer to this.

Ray Ubinger

23rd June 2006, 03:15 PM

orphia nay writes:

> I have the Naudet's lawyers' letter saved to pc.

Good for you. Can anyone still find it on the Web?

> While it does say "they shot 140 hours of video footage of that fateful day"

Thank you, that's what I said it said.

> it also says their footage was the only known film of the first plane strike.

I don't expect "Pavel Hlava" to object -- he was part of the same Naudet-FDNY propaganda team. And by the way he too had traffic blocked for his filming (empty lane over to his right during an otherwise bumper-to-bumper situation) -- just like Jules and Gedeon did.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pavel

> How many cameramen are listed in the film's credits, Ray?

Possibly several, unless I'm just remembering the "additional footage" credits, like for the airborne harbor shot of the 1st Collapse. My dvd is currently loaned out (and the online version is real clunky for me; fast-forward & rewind don't work; just play and pause and start all over).

No cameramen but Jules and Gedeon and Hanlon (who claims "I was off that day") receive any mention whatsoever in the narrative. They give no explanation for how they got two different shots of Mr. Backofhead stabbing his right arm toward where Father Judge was.
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm
Or should we assume the stabbing was a repeated motion?

What objection if any do you still have to my argument that the bravenewworld clip was shot at Church & Murray, or my argument that it was shot at the instant of the 1st Hit?

Ray Ubinger

Gravy

23rd June 2006, 03:21 PM

What objection if any do you still have to my argument that the bravenewworld clip was shot at Church & Murray, or my argument that it was shot at the instant of the 1st Hit?

Ray Ubinger
Prove that the streeet was closed at 8:46, creep.
If you can't do that, your theory fails.
So stop whining and do it.

orphia nay

24th June 2006, 02:50 AM

Go, on Ray, prove the street was closed at the time of the first hit. AND that there was no debris at that time. AND that Gedeon wasn't at the firehouse. AND that anyone else was filming other than the two brothers. AND that they had footage of the first hit other than Jules' footage. AND that the Naudets were told to be wherever they were at whatever time. AND by whom they were told to be there. AND that you're not a creep.

> My guess is that it shows audience reaction to one of the towers beginning to fall.

No, because then it would have to be after the pre-1st-Collapse (no Dust yet) shots of the same street location as here:

http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/constructiondebris.htm

(Or for quicker comparison use this pair of still screens:
http://tinyurl.com/dvxft
)

The bravenewworld clip has to be earlier, by the lighting. Proof:

In both clips, the windows of the building (Emigrants Savings Bank) at the SW corner of Church-Murray, are casting a row of squarish light blobs down onto the middle of Church Street. This is westward morning sunlight reflected back eastward.

The row of squarish light blobs is FARTHER east in the EARLIER clip when the sun is LOWER and the angle of reflection more ACUTE:
http://911foreknowldge.com/bravenewworld.htm
(EARLIER)

The row of squarish light blobs is LESS easterly, farther WEST, in the LATER clips when the sun is HIGHER and the angle of reflection more OBLIQUE:
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/constructiondebris.htm
(LATER)

Which light blobs? You mean the dust?

(BTW, the Emigrant Savings bank (http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=362440) is next door to that building.)

gumboot

24th June 2006, 03:15 AM

I have taken a look at Ray's pics of the airliner's main undercarriage. I noticed it was surrounded by yellow tape.

It appears to be the same tape as appears in the footage on the street, depicting people's reaction to the "first hit". One of these pieces of footage even has a guy with a radio in blue uniform with "FBI" all over it.

The yellow "construction" tape in the background all those street shots is identical in each.

I copied the pic of the undercarriage to my hard drive and opened it in photoshop. The text on the yellow tape was backwards and upside down, but after double-flipping it it was easy to read - "POLICE LINE DO NOT CROSS"

In other words?

The video supposedly taken by the second Naudet Brother of people reacting to the first hit is not what Ray claims it is.

It is, as I suspected, footage taken post-9/11. Debris from the attacks litters the road and the area has been fenced off by yellow police tape. FBI agents appear on the perimeter. There is no traffic because the area has been sealed off from traffic.

No mystery there.

-Andrew

By the way Ray, the reason the undercarriage wasn't "singed" was because it was propelled through the building at 500 mph encased safely inside the main undercarriage housing. I'd be surprised if anything will catch alight when propelled through a fire-balling cloud of kerosene at 500mph, certainly the rubber of an aircraft tyre, encased in an undercarriage hoursing, will not catch fire.

chillzero

24th June 2006, 09:17 AM

PLEASE for goodness' sake - PLEASE use the £$%$$%$% QUOTE FUNCTION !!!! Click the button, copy any quotes you need to add from the original post, and surround them with quote tags. It's really very simple.

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

>> When else [besides 8:46 a.m. on 9/11] were pedestrians walking along normally, nobody looking up, and then suddenly they whirled their heads up or around to look somewhere new?

chillzero writes:

> Perhaps some time later when the documentary makers decided to get some people out on a street, and film them all suddenly looking up on cue.

No, because that part of that street stopped looking like that at 10:00 a.m. on 9/11, when the Dust coated it.

http://tinyurl.com/dvxft
(top: Church-Murray during 1st Hit, from Naudet movie
bottom: same location between 2nd Hit and 1st Collapse, also from Naudet movie)

http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/constructiondebris.htm
(two Naudet vid clips of same intersection pre-1st-Collapse)

http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/blockwalk.htm
(another Naudet vid clip of same intersection, plus Tim Canale archive footage of same intersection post-1st-Collapse)

And incidentally,
Church-Murray photographed by Nico Haupt in 2005:
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/4032/murray040425tl.jpg

By the time cleanup occurred days or weeks if not months later (and remember the movie was already broadcast by the 6-month anniversary), the rubble and trash cans and yellow tape all out in the middle of street would have been gone. They would not clean the dust off the street and then replace the rubble back onto the street.

So, you don't when cleanup occurred then? Perhaps they got the shots the next day. You can't really dispute this without any facts to back you up.

You can very easily prove your case here; by a few simple facts:
On 9/11, before the hits, was this particular street blocked for traffic for any particular reason? If not, then it is pretty obvious the shot comes from a different day, when the road WAS blocked - emm.. perhaps after the day's events.
How quickly was cleanup achieved? Did the dust perhaps blow away on it's own? Was some rubble left remaining at a time, within 6 months, when the film crew could have gone for their shots? Perhaps the rubble was not from the event, but from some aftermath work - after the cleanup.

> Sometimes these people are called 'actors', and even get paid for doing this.

Re-enactments that are put into a DOCUMENTARY without being CALLED re-enactments are called LIES.

Ray Ubinger

It happens. This has been explained to you several times. Get over it.

Gravy

24th June 2006, 10:21 AM

PLEASE You can very easily prove your case here; by a few simple facts:
On 9/11, before the hits, was this particular street blocked for traffic for any particular reason? If not, then it is pretty obvious the shot comes from a different day, when the road WAS blocked - emm.. perhaps [b]after the day's events.
The shot is certainly from 9/11, because after the towers and WTC 7 came down that area was completely covered in heavy dust and debris.

A large part of an engine from flight 175 landed at Church & Murray St, and police put warning tape around it. So it's safe to assume that the street was blocked for a good deal of the time between when the planes hit and when the towers came down. Mr. Ubinger simply needs to show that the road was blocked at the time flight 11 hit. Then he will have taken one small step away from creepdom.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

chillzero

24th June 2006, 11:15 AM

The shot is certainly from 9/11, because after the towers and WTC 7 came down that area was completely covered in heavy dust and debris.

A large part of an engine from flight 175 landed at Church & Murray St, and police put warning tape around it. So it's safe to assume that the street was blocked for a good deal of the time between when the planes hit and when the towers came down. Mr. Ubinger simply needs to show that the road was blocked at the time flight 11 hit. Then he will have taken one small step away from creepdom.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

I agree.

Regnad Kcin

24th June 2006, 11:26 AM

PLEASE for goodness' sake - PLEASE use the £$%$$%$% QUOTE FUNCTION !!!! Click the button, copy any quotes you need to add from the original post, and surround them with quote tags. It's really very simple.I agree, for what it's worth. Not endeavoring to communicate in a manner easily accessible to the recipient of one's thoughts is very close to inconsiderate, if not rude.

chran

25th June 2006, 01:36 AM

gumboot

25th June 2006, 01:50 AM

My second guess was going to be that the footage was taken post-hit but pre-collapse.

Can we get some confirmation on how quickly the aircraft debris was taped-off?

Also, I understand that the dust was hosed down to stop it spreading. Has the actual location for the claimed "First hit" footage been confirmed? If so, can we confirm the extent of debris at that location?

According to FEMA's maps the significant pieces of aircraft debris landed well outside the significant areas of building collapse debris.

Can we get confirmations on any of this info?

-Andrew

Gravy

25th June 2006, 03:36 AM

My second guess was going to be that the footage was taken post-hit but pre-collapse.

Can we get some confirmation on how quickly the aircraft debris was taped-off?
I'm sure Ray is working on that.

Also, I understand that the dust was hosed down to stop it spreading. Has the actual location for the claimed "First hit" footage been confirmed? If so, can we confirm the extent of debris at that location?

According to FEMA's maps the significant pieces of aircraft debris landed well outside the significant areas of building collapse debris.

Can we get confirmations on any of this info?
I don't know how much was hosed down, or when. All of lower Manhattan was covered with dust. The "first hit" footage was shot at Church & Lispenard, 14 blocks from the WTC. AFAIK, Church & Murray, 3 blocks north of the WTC complex (well, about 5 blocks from #2 WTC), was the farthest point reached by aircraft debris.

gumboot

25th June 2006, 05:23 AM

The "first hit" footage was shot at Church & Lispenard, 14 blocks from the WTC. AFAIK, Church & Murray, 3 blocks north of the WTC complex (well, about 5 blocks from #2 WTC), was the farthest point reached by aircraft debris.

Sorry, I was meaning Ray's "supposed" first hit reaction footage taken by the other brother. I understood it was taken at Church and Murray, where the engine of UA175 was found.

According to FEMA's reports this is well outside the building debris area, meaning it would only have received a coating of dust.

Which to me leads to two proposals OTHER than Ray's:

1) The footage was taken after UA175 had hit, and after the engine had been taped off, but before the buildings collapsed
2) The footage was taken after both buildings had collapsed, perhaps on a following day, and the present dust is either not noticable, or has been hosed away

Either of these seem highly plausible to me. I really need to see the doco to make any informed conclusions about the footage, but I'm having trouble tracking it down here.

-Andrew

orphia nay

25th June 2006, 11:56 PM

I'm leaning towards the bravenewworld (http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm) footage to be Gedeon's at the time of the second collapse.

In this BBC interview (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/02/september_11/forum/txt/naudet_transcript.txt) he says he was at the firehouse both at the time of the first hit (8:46am), and also when he saw the first collapse (9:59am):
It was a total nightmare because I was back at the firehouse
watching the television inside the firehouse, the first tower collapsing, live, like most of the world saw it live, and I knew that Jules was there.

Then Gedeon gets a lift down there in a firetruck with some firemen who'd come in from home. He says he saw the second tower collapse:
I remember looking up like that and it’s like everything went in
slow motion – I saw the tower collapsing. I just, without thinking, jumped into a fire truck that was behind me. I remember an FBI agent jumped also in it.

In the bravenewworld clip, clip#1, and the two clips taken near Church & Murray (http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/constructiondebris.htm), clips #2 & 3, you can see he is walking up Church towards Murray, and he turns as an FBI agent walks past (clip#3 (and a man starts to point at what I believe is the dust cloud coming)).
I would guess that the firetruck was behind him before he started walking in clip#1.

Clip #1 shows more people to the right already looking up at the towers than in the bravenewworld2 footage. That footage with its dubbed-in sound is misleading. The people looking up are probably just checking on the building as it burns.

This account (http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/gallery/us/ed15.htm) gives us some idea of the situation on Church Street just before the first collapse:

While standing on the sidewalk opposite 250 Broadway in which some of our important offices are located, I was told that the engine of the crashed plane was lying at the intersection of Murray and Church Streets. I walked towards that spot to see the engine. When I reached there I saw the engine and other plane parts scattered around. I looked at 90 Church St. from where I stood to see whether there was any damage to my office building. I did not see any damage to my office building but to my surprise I did see some damage to 100 Church St. I could also see from there that the Towers were on fire and smoke was billowing. At the repeated orders of police personnel, I, along with others, walked back towards 250 Broadway and entered its lobby for any further information. The security told me that the office had also evacuated. Immediately, I got out and stood with others at the corner in front of the Music World Building. From there we also had the full view of the burning Towers.

Minutes later, as everyone was watching, I saw the WTC Two coming down. As the Tower collapsed, the thick smoke started spreading around at an unimaginable speed. At that time everybody started to run. I also ran with the crowd towards the Brooklyn Bridge.

And another account (http://www.geoplace.com/hottopics/groundzero/hallaccount.asp):

9:40 a.m.: In a state of disbelief, I start walking to the east to try to see what happened at the South Tower.

9:53 a.m.: I reach Church St. and begin to walk south. I can see the smoke pouring out of the South Tower, and there are large pieces of metal falling from the building superstructure.

9:58 a.m.: As I walk south on Church St., the South Tower begins to collapse. It's immediately apparent that a cloud of dust and debris is going to travel quickly right up Church St. The crowd moves north in unison. Sensing that I can't outrun the dust cloud, I duck into a side street, and the cloud rolls past. The mood of the crowd changes distinctly from disbelief to terror. I attempt to head back toward our office to locate our staff and try to determine if everyone is okay.

10:10 a.m.: I'm blocked by police barricades, about half a block north of our office [the New York City GIS Utility at 75 Park Place (one block north of the World Trade Center complex)], and look around for co-workers. I find colleagues from other organizations, but none from the GIS Utility. I continue walking on Greenwich, looking for co-workers.

I'm thinking there would have been some dust and debris after the plane hits and the first collapse, but there would have been much more after the second collapse which would spread its own debris and dust, plus the dust of the first collapse.

Gravy

26th June 2006, 12:08 AM

Sorry, I was meaning Ray's "supposed" first hit reaction footage taken by the other brother. I understood it was taken at Church and Murray, where the engine of UA175 was found.

According to FEMA's reports this is well outside the building debris area, meaning it would only have received a coating of dust.

Which to me leads to two proposals OTHER than Ray's:

1) The footage was taken after UA175 had hit, and after the engine had been taped off, but before the buildings collapsed
2) The footage was taken after both buildings had collapsed, perhaps on a following day, and the present dust is either not noticable, or has been hosed away

Either of these seem highly plausible to me. I really need to see the doco to make any informed conclusions about the footage, but I'm having trouble tracking it down here.

-Andrew
The first option is the only one that makes sense to me. After the buildings collapsed, the area didn't look the same for many months. The "coating of dust" reached for miles. Three blocks away, it heavily covered everything, and was accompanied by millions of pounds of paper and other small debris. The FEMA damage diagram only refers to pieces of the building structures that were ejected.

gumboot

26th June 2006, 12:14 AM

The first option is the only one that makes sense to me. After the buildings collapsed, the area didn't look the same for many months. The "coating of dust" reached for miles. Three blocks away, it heavily covered everything, and was accompanied by millions of pounds of paper and other small debris. The FEMA damage diagram only refers to pieces of the building structures that were ejected.

Thanks for clarifying. :)

-Andrew

Gravy

26th June 2006, 12:43 AM

Here's a photo that shows what we're talking about. The north tower collapse is underway. The area is already covered with dust from the south tower. Of course, WTC 7 top right corner) added to that later in the day. What a mess. :mad:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790449f863177299.jpg

edit: fixed photo

orphia nay

26th June 2006, 02:15 AM

Thanks, Gravy. In your photo, Gravy, I think Murray is one further street down. Compare with this map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.jpg). (I've also been researching the buildings on the west side of Church St.)
Still, it looks like there was plenty more dust at 10:28am than I thought.

Testing another theory - that Gedeon hasn't lied about his whereabouts. If Gedeon filmed that bravenewworld footage, it would have been filmed after 8:46am (1st hit) and before 9:59am (WTC2 collapse), both times when he was back at the firehouse.

According to Ray's mob (http://911foreknowledge.com/n2hit.htm), Gedeon filmed the second hit (9:03am), seen in footage taken from the corner of Church & Vesey in front of 5 World Trade Center (3 corners down from Church & Murray).
So, did he have time to drive down there 7 short blocks before 9:03am? I think it's possible. (If not, there are plenty of explanations other than Ray's delusional theory.)
Did he then have time to travel two and a half short blocks, film while walking for a few moments, and then get back to the firehouse in time to see the first collapse live on tv, as he said? I think it's possible. (Again, if not, there's no reason to jump to daft conclusions.)

orphia nay

26th June 2006, 02:20 AM

Forgot to add, in Gravy's pic, 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?

gumboot

26th June 2006, 03:29 AM

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).

-Andrew

orphia nay

26th June 2006, 06:35 PM

Gravy, where did you find that pic? Any chance there'd be others from a bit earlier or later in the day?

Gravy

26th June 2006, 08:29 PM

Howdy, sleuthers.
Orphia, Murray St. is correctly marked on my photo. The map is deceptive because Murray takes a bend to the right just off the top of the map. Murray is 1 block north of Park. 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.)

Here's the wide shot of that enlargement. I don't have anything like that from earlier, and I lost the link, so I don't know where I got it.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044a08d278bf01.jpg

These may be of use, although they would have been better if taken from south of Murray. If you want I can take some photos there in the daytime this week.

Church St. Looking North from Murray to Warren

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044a091dcc8ebe.jpg

Church St. Looking south to Murray (near corner)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044a091dd172c8.jpg

Regnad Kcin

26th June 2006, 08:58 PM

To this day my gut wrenches when I see those towers either hit, on fire, or falling. Even still photos get to me.

orphia nay

27th June 2006, 02:44 AM

Thanks for fixing the pic, Gravy, and thanks for the other pics.

Howdy, sleuthers.
...
These may be of use, although they would have been better if taken from south of Murray. If you want I can take some photos there in the daytime this week.

:)

That would be great!
Would it be too much to ask if you could take several pics (of the sunlight/shadows on the building on the southwest corner of Church and Murray (next to the Emigrant Savings Bank)) over the course of an hour, starting from 9am?

Or maybe over half an hour - one at 9:15, one at 9:30 and one at 9:45?

But I don't want you to get any hassle from jackbooted thugs. ;) :boggled:

gumboot

27th June 2006, 04:38 AM

Hi everyone,

Managed to track down the documentary and watched it. Was pretty heavy stuff...

After watching it I am completely and utterly convinced (in my expert opinion ;) ) that this footage is 100% genuine and there was no foreknowledge on the part of the filmmakers.

Everything I saw was in keeping with an inexperienced pair of filmmakers suddenly thrown into something unexpected and alien, randomly grabbing footage, and then in the editing room, trying to wrestle that footage into a story that did the events justice.

-Andrew

P.S. I think the USA showed great restraint in only invading *one* country.

les raphael

27th June 2006, 07:11 AM

From : lesraphael@hotmail.com Tu 27 June 06
Right - one post, and one only, before I get back to doing something worthwhile with my time. Orphia Nay's "critique" of my convenience list is not only complete and utter nonsense, it's pretentious complete and utter nonsense. I'm not even going to bother going over it point by point, except that my reply to the question "How many ways are there of saying 'He filmed the impact' ?" is "How many ways are there of saying 'What kind of brainless question is that ?'" There are a million ways, depending on the circumstances, like how ?, when ?, where ?, etc ; I list 69, which all happen to be convenient. The whole point of the essay and the list is to establish that the circumstances of this particular film are suspicious : "he filmed the impact" is a denial of every single circumstance - it could be repeated 69 times. It's also a denial of your own argument - that the circumstances are accidental : you're saying the circumstances are totally irrelevant. I don't know whether this is stupidity so total it's frightening, or just wilful dishonesty. Secondly, there are NO contradictions in the conveniences, and there are NO duplicates. Thirdly, the part of the tower visible from Naudet's location was ONE TWELFTH - the top third of the north face. Different figures elsewhere are because they are in a different context. Fourthly, here's a little example of how something can be unique and not unique at the same time : the letter A - as in "the cat sat on the mat" - is unique in being the only A in the alphabet, but not unique in not being the only letter. The Naudet film is unique in showing the impact, but not unique in not being the only film of the plane. Is that clear enough for you, or are you completely beyond hope ? I'M supposed to be the confused one ? - yet first you're saying you want my essay banned from the net, then you're
effectively advertising it. Maybe I should be flattered by the attention (I'm not), or grateful for the free plug - if your idiotic rantings have folk checking out the original.
Then we have Gravy, who blithely announces he doesn't have the Naudet film and hasn't seen it - and he probably doesn't even understand why that absolves me of any responsibility to pay any attention to his opinions on my essay - which is an investigation of the film. If he hasn't seen it, he doesn't know what he's talking about - period. This is the kind of nonsense I got from some clown who insisted there were at least a dozen firemen at Church and Lispenard, because the film's commentary said so : not on screen, there aren't, but then if HE watched the bloody film, he'd probably see what he wanted, not what was there. And that's the problem with all of you - you all start from the prejudice that you know what the truth is, and the idea that the poor little innocent Naudets were complicit in 9/11 is so obviously idiotic it hardly needs to be said - and anything contradicting that prejudice has to be disposed of. I had NO preconceptions about 9/11 when it happened : it took me a week to work out who did it, using logical thought processes, mostly to do with the cui bono question. I had no preconceptions about the Naudet film, until a year later - as I've already explained - when I heard the word "unique" used about it, for the first time, which started me thinking about it. Let me get this said - and again, it's in the essay, for anybody interested in actually reading it : you lot have ONE conviction, four years and nine months later, after international investigations costing billions - of a guy who pleaded guilty, thereby avoiding a trial. The Bush version of what happened on 9/11 has NEVER - NOT ONCE - to date been successfully put to a trial jury, to establish it as a legal fact. The Kean Report has no legal status : "Our aim has not been to assign individual blame" - that's what courts of law do - or don't, in the case of 9/11. With a case as insubstantial - in some ways non-existent - as that, I would think twice before shooting my mouth off claiming to know for a fact who was behind 9/11. Until a jury finds them guilty, you know as much, or as little, as the rest of us, and a touch of humility would be welcome.
Fat chance, from the likes of Regnad Kcin : are you as backward as your name suggests ? I use my real one, myself, and my real e-mail address (lesraphael@hotmail.com), and postal address. I'd respectfully suggest Nick Danger-backwards go back to primary school and learn some manners, like not demanding to know what folk do for a living, which is none of your bloody business - I'm the safety officer in a nuclear plant - d'oh ! - what do YOU care ? Or not asking folk if they've ever actually BEEN in New York - as if that's of any relevance, unlike not actually having SEEN the Naudet film. New York is the most filmed, photographed, written about, talked about city in the world : you don't have to go there to know what it's like, and here's a little scoop for you - I'VE never been there. So what ? You've been invited to point out a single factual inaccuracy in my essay, about New York or anything else, and you've failed to provide one example - like you've failed to mention Northwoods, because it's a conspiracy FACT, not a theory, and you can't deal with facts that don't support your prejudices ; like you've failed to provide one quote predicting the collapse of No. 7 that isn't qualified by past-tense verbs - which is a little demonstration of the fact that you know nothing about basic research methods - all you ever do is parrot other people's research - and other people's nonsense. You haven't contributed a single original idea to our imperfect understanding of what happened on 9/11. If the predictions were public knowledge, and on record, BEFORE it happened, nobody would be making anything of Larry Silverstein's comment about "pulling" it - there'd be no mystery about it. Folk believe these things because there are holes in the story - because they have perfectly rational, logical REASONS. The Kean Report doesn't even consider the collapse of a 47-storey building worthy of explanation, yet John Lehman has the effrontery to claim the report answered all the questions : it did nothing of the kind. Read David Griffin's book if you want more examples - but you don't, because of pigheaded arrogance and dishonesty, like Nay's asides about UFOs, teleportation, etc, none of which make one appearance in my essay. I'm so sorry not to conform to your idea of what a "CT" sounds like. But I'm being sarcastic. And, at 54, I've probably got a lot more experience of it than any of you lot : are any of you out of your teens ? If you're voters, that would help explain why we have Bush in the White House and Blair in Downing Street, you pathetic boneheads. I never said I was against abuse, by the way - no hypocrisy - wrong yet again, folks - with your puerile smartaleck comments masquerading as wit. I'm only against it when there's nothing backing it up, like logical arguments - like these ones. And that, as they say, is that : carry on up your khybers. (Note for US readers : Cockney rhyming slang - Khyber Pass = arse/ass)

Arkan_Wolfshade

27th June 2006, 07:16 AM

Ah! The goggles... they do nothing!

gumboot

27th June 2006, 08:28 AM

From : lesraphael@hotmail.com
Right - one post, and one only, before I get back to doing something worthwhile with my time.

Um...

A question for members of the discussion who are probably more familiar with les raphael than me...

Are they, in your estimate, insane?

I'd just like to know... because... :eye-poppi

-Andrew

Starrman

27th June 2006, 08:46 AM

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

Regnad Kcin

27th June 2006, 08:46 AM

Right - one post, and one only, before I get back to doing something worthwhile with my time...So, pontification but no discussion, eh? Figures.

Regnad Kcin

27th June 2006, 09:59 AM

...ONE conviction, four years and nine months later, after international investigations costing billions - of a guy who pleaded guilty, thereby avoiding a trial.Can you provide a cite for your claim that the Moussaoui investigation cost "billions?" Thanks.

The Bush version of what happened on 9/11 has NEVER - NOT ONCE - to date been successfully put to a trial jury, to establish it as a legal fact.I note your attempt to poison the well with your creation of the title "The Bush version." In any event, are you aware of how criminal trials-by-jury are initiated as well as conducted?

The Kean Report has no legal status : "Our aim has not been to assign individual blame" - that's what courts of law do - or don't, in the case of 9/11. With a case as insubstantial - in some ways non-existent - as that, I would think twice before shooting my mouth off claiming to know for a fact who was behind 9/11.Oh, the irony.

Until a jury finds them guilty, you know as much, or as little, as the rest of us, and a touch of humility would be welcome.Another mistake. And more irony.

Fat chance, from the likes of Regnad Kcin : are you as backward as your name suggests ?I can't tell you how funny that is. Really, I can't.

I use my real one, myself, and my real e-mail address (lesraphael@hotmail.com), and postal address.Bravo.

I'd respectfully suggest Nick Danger-backwards go back to primary school and learn some manners, like not demanding to know what folk do for a living, which is none of your bloody business - I'm the safety officer in a nuclear plant - d'oh ! - what do YOU care ?That's your "respectfully?"

Not incidentally, nowhere did I "demand" to know; I simply asked. The information might be pertinent to a discussion of your analytical efforts with regard to the Naudet film. See?

Oh, and for someone who "respectfully" suggests I go back to school, perhaps you yourself would like to join me there for remedial studies in grammar, punctuation, and composition.

Or not asking folk if they've ever actually BEEN in New York - as if that's of any relevance...Of course it's relevant, as I detailed in post #124 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1723292&postcount=124)

...unlike not actually having SEEN the Naudet film. New York is the most filmed, photographed, written about, talked about city in the world : you don't have to go there to know what it's like, and here's a little scoop for you - I'VE never been there. So what ?It's quite pertinent to many of your points. Its popularity as evidenced by being "filmed, photographed, written about, [and] talked about" whether a lot or a little has little bearing on the matter.

You've been invited to point out a single factual inaccuracy in my essay...I have? Can you provide a cite as I think I missed that.

...about New York or anything else, and you've failed to provide one example - like you've failed to mention Northwoods, because it's a conspiracy FACT, not a theory...Northwoods has been covered ad nauseum. Nothing conspiratorial about it.

Say, did you know that Richard Nixon was in Dallas, TX on November 22, 1963? That's right, the former presidential candidate and Republican opponent of John F. Kennedy was in the city on that fateful day to give a speech to a Pepsi Co. convention. Or so he claimed...

...and you can't deal with facts that don't support your prejudices...Oh, the irony, pt. 3.

like you've failed to provide one quote predicting the collapse of No. 7 that isn't qualified by past-tense verbs - which is a little demonstration of the fact that you know nothing about basic research methods...And here's an example of why I asked about your career. Please detail how you've come to your advanced degree of competency in "research methods."

And by the way, I would be reluctant to state as "fact" that others know nothing about a particular field or methodology if it was actually nothing more than a WAG. But that's just me, I suppose.

...all you ever do is parrot other people's research - and other people's nonsense.Whoops! Then he dives right back in.

Really? That's "all" I "ever do?" I'm so ashamed.

You haven't contributed a single original idea to our imperfect understanding of what happened on 9/11.If you say so.

If the predictions were public knowledge, and on record, BEFORE it happened, nobody would be making anything of Larry Silverstein's comment about "pulling" it - there'd be no mystery about it.There's no mystery about it now. Except perhaps in the minds of Tom Clancy wannabees who preach to others about their deficiency in "basic research methods."

Folk believe these things because there are holes in the story - because they have perfectly rational, logical REASONS.There will be "holes" in any story. That doesn't mean you can reverse-engineer pieces to fit.

<snip>

If you're voters, that would help explain why we have Bush in the White House and Blair in Downing Street, you pathetic boneheads.Now I'm a Bush-voter? Well, you learn something new every day.

I never said I was against abuse, by the way - no hypocrisy - wrong yet again, folks - with your puerile smartaleck comments masquerading as wit.See here, I've not made one comment about the dental curiosities of our British friends, and I'm not about to start!

I'm only against it when there's nothing backing it up, like logical arguments - like these ones...Well, you finally managed to get something correct.

CptColumbo

27th June 2006, 11:07 AM

Fat chance, from the likes of Regnad Kcin : are you as backward as your name suggests?
I never noticed that before. Cool.

Gravy

27th June 2006, 11:04 PM

From : lesraphael@hotmail.com Tu 27 June 06
Right - one post, and one only, before I get back to doing something worthwhile with my time.
Yes, you seem like someone who spends time doing worthwhile things.

Well, at least we've got the despicable creeps limited to one thread.

orphia nay

29th June 2006, 04:08 AM

From : lesraphael@hotmail.com Tu 27 June 06
Right - one post, and one only, before I get back to doing something worthwhile with my time. Orphia Nay's "critique" of my convenience list is not only complete and utter nonsense, it's pretentious complete and utter nonsense. I'm not even going to bother going over it point by point, except that my reply to the question "How many ways are there of saying 'He filmed the impact' ?" is "How many ways are there of saying 'What kind of brainless question is that ?'" There are a million ways, depending on the circumstances, like how ?, when ?, where ?, etc ; I list 69, which all happen to be convenient.

Evasion and ad hominems noted.

I and others have listed more 'conveniences' that you haven't listed. You just don't understand that you haven't garnered any circumstantial evidence that relates to the 'cover-up' you allege. Or any type of evidence, for that matter.

(i) For a coincidence to provide circumstantial evidence it requires 2 positive facts that together point to the separate fact of a crime being committed. (Note: I said 2 positive facts. Therefore, "saying something happened, but something else didn't" does not count as a coincidence, because there are an infinite number of things that could not have happened, whereas it requires two facts to make a coincidence about something. As an example, "The coincidence rule, however, applies to evidence that two or more “related events” occurred in order to prove that, because of the improbability of the events occurring coincidentally, a person “… did a particular act or had a particular state of mind”. http://www.jc.nsw.gov.au/ctcbb/ch04s03.html)

The whole point of the essay and the list is to establish that the circumstances of this particular film are suspicious : "he filmed the impact" is a denial of every single circumstance - it could be repeated 69 times. It's also a denial of your own argument - that the circumstances are accidental : you're saying the circumstances are totally irrelevant.

Your argument itself is totally irrelevant to your unsupported allegations. The circumstances only prove that Jules Naudet was able to film the impact. You have no proof that relates to the Naudets being part of a government cover-up. None. You have no evidence of correspondence to the Naudets from government departments detailing instructions telling them to be ready to film the towers at the stated time and/or place. You don't even have evidence of any correspondence whatsoever from government departments. You have no evidence of payments, alliances or interactions of any kind. You have neither proof of which government department co-ordinated your mythical cover-up, nor circumstantial evidence.

I don't know whether this is stupidity so total it's frightening, or just wilful dishonesty. Secondly, there are NO contradictions in the conveniences, and there are NO duplicates.

They are all duplicates in that they all prove only that Jules was able to film the impact.

Thirdly, the part of the tower visible from Naudet's location was ONE TWELFTH - the top third of the north face. Different figures elsewhere are because they are in a different context.

Please explain, providing references.

Fourthly, here's a little example of how something can be unique and not unique at the same time : the letter A - as in "the cat sat on the mat" - is unique in being the only A in the alphabet, but not unique in not being the only letter. The Naudet film is unique in showing the impact, but not unique in not being the only film of the plane. Is that clear enough for you, or are you completely beyond hope ?

You are equivocating. How does being 'unique but not unique' prove that the film was part of a cover-up?

I'M supposed to be the confused one ? - yet first you're saying you want my essay banned from the net, then you're
effectively advertising it. Maybe I should be flattered by the attention (I'm not), or grateful for the free plug - if your idiotic rantings have folk checking out the original.

If you think any publicity is good publicity, you must not get much good publicity.

Then we have Gravy, who blithely announces he doesn't have the Naudet film and hasn't seen it - and he probably doesn't even understand why that absolves me of any responsibility to pay any attention to his opinions on my essay - which is an investigation of the film. If he hasn't seen it, he doesn't know what he's talking about - period. This is the kind of nonsense I got from some clown who insisted there were at least a dozen firemen at Church and Lispenard, because the film's commentary said so : not on screen, there aren't, but then if HE watched the bloody film, he'd probably see what he wanted, not what was there. And that's the problem with all of you - you all start from the prejudice that you know what the truth is, and the idea that the poor little innocent Naudets were complicit in 9/11 is so obviously idiotic it hardly needs to be said - and anything contradicting that prejudice has to be disposed of.

We could say the same thing to you, if we wanted to be petty.

I had NO preconceptions about 9/11 when it happened : it took me a week to work out who did it, using logical thought processes, mostly to do with the cui bono question.

Who did it? Or are you 'shooting your mouth off'? (See below.)

I had no preconceptions about the Naudet film, until a year later - as I've already explained - when I heard the word "unique" used about it, for the first time, which started me thinking about it. Let me get this said - and again, it's in the essay, for anybody interested in actually reading it : you lot have ONE conviction, four years and nine months later, after international investigations costing billions - of a guy who pleaded guilty, thereby avoiding a trial. The Bush version of what happened on 9/11 has NEVER - NOT ONCE - to date been successfully put to a trial jury, to establish it as a legal fact. The Kean Report has no legal status : "Our aim has not been to assign individual blame" - that's what courts of law do - or don't, in the case of 9/11. With a case as insubstantial - in some ways non-existent - as that, I would think twice before shooting my mouth off claiming to know for a fact who was behind 9/11. Until a jury finds them guilty, you know as much, or as little, as the rest of us, and a touch of humility would be welcome.

See previous comment. My statement that you are confused still stands.

gumboot

29th June 2006, 04:40 AM

Nice post Orphia.

-Andrew

Ray Ubinger

30th June 2006, 04:20 PM

>> [W]hy ZERO footage from 8:46 a.m. at the firehouse where the Naudet movie narration says Gedeon Naudet was at that time? We're talking about a zillion-alarm call right where the supposedly prepared documentarian was hanging around with the alleged rookie-subject of the alleged documentary. The Naudets' whole alleged purpose was to document "a boy becoming a man." They got several shots of him reacting to previous calls which didn't turn out to be serious fires. If footage existed by Gedeon, allegedly still at the firehouse, at 8:46, why would it not be included in the movie?

The Fire writes:

> Because it was of no interest to the story.

It was of central interest to the story: their subject Tony would finally be getting a fire to go to. They specifically, sarcastically lament how all they had up until then was "a great cooking show." That is, just the garrison life of firemen, eating together and hanging around. No boy-becomes-man-by-fighting-blazes stuff yet. It's a good thing for the Naudets that S11 came along and made their documentary sellable.

> The goalpost of the finished product changed with the attack. IT was no longer the story of a firefighter, but of the worst terror attack to be recorded in modern times. As such what happens back at the relative safety of the firehouse is of no interest. What happens out on the street is.

So why does Gedeon, after filming the 2nd Hit
http://www.911hoax.com/gNaudetWTC1_9.asp?intPage=46&PageNum=46
http://911foreknowledge.com/n2hit.htm
walk back to the firehouse and film rookie Tony manning the phone
http://911foreknowledge.com/tony/tonycalls.htm
and watching TV
http://911foreknowledge.com/tony/clocks.htm
?

> Finally there are the possibility that Gedeon were there 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?

>> The narration says that Gedeon sent Jules out at 8:30 to cover the alleged odor of alleged gas. Their alleged subject, the alleged rookie Tony Benetatos, was not on that call, he stayed back at the firehouse. Gedeon's job at that point, if he really was the only one of the two of them who was still with their alleged subject Tony at the firehouse, and if they really were serious about documenting Tony's boy-becomes-man story, would be to be stand ready to film any action arising with Tony. Not to go over their schedule coordinations or somesuch.

> As I've said: There are more things going on behind the scenes of a shoot than you seem to know about. You've also just provided the deathblow to your theory about foreknowledge: Gedeon were there because they were waiting for action, in this case for the subject to be called out on something a bit more serious than a gasleak which weren't there.

But the zillion-alarm call at 8:46 didn't qualify? And then why did Gedeon say he WALKED from firehouse to WTC at 8:46? He caught rides on the firetrucks for all the previous dispatches that he filmed. Didn't any firemen drive from the 100 Duane Street firehouse (where Gedeon allegedly was at 8:46) to the WTC, at 8:46?

(Note: The quote someone posted from an article about the Naudet movie, wherein Gedeon is said to have ridden in a pickup truck with three firemen, was from Gedeon's THIRD venture down Church St. that morning. That ride is in the movie--it's when they just HAPPEN to catch a cameo of Rudy Giuliani walking up Church St., and the WTC-2 dust is already everywhere.)

And by the way aren't GAS LEAKS "quite serious" enough, contrary to the Naudet firemen's no-big-deal attitude on their way to the alleged odor of alleged gas at Church & Lispenard at 8:30? See the pictures in Les Raphael's article of the 2001 Father's Day fire which started as a gas leak and claimed the lives of three FDNYers. This horrific incident somehow merits no mention in the Naudet film, despite that it was big news to FDNY and occurred in the Naudets' first week of filming. I figure they knew that if they mentioned it, they could not later use the carefully prepared lines about the 9/11 gas odor call being no big deal.

>> Also you should say who you think filmed
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
at Church & Murray at 8:46, if you believe Gedeon was at the firehouse then.
The clip doesn't go away just because THEY don't say who filmed it.

> I'm not commenting on that since I don't know New York and as such cannot be certain that the clip is shot where you said.

Observe the matching location details:

Reaction Shot at top, shot at 8:46; at bottom, ADMITTED footage by Gedeon Naudet from after the 2nd Hit but before the 1st Demolition:
http://tinyurl.com/dvxft

More admitted Gedeon Naudet footage at the same intersection:
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/blockwalk.htm

Church-Murray photographed in 2005 by Nico Haupt
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/4032/murray040425tl.jpg

Church-Murray photographed in 2006 by Google Earth:
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/spookcentral3.htm

> That clip doesn't say anything except someone, one person looking at the sky.

First of all it's at least three people reacting--Gray T Shirt man, Briefcase man, and the infamous so-called 'Condi Rice lookalike'. Moreover, by the known location, the direction they're reacting in is the direction of WTC two blocks away. The view of WTC from this location is actually shown in the clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm

> and it doesn't show the date it was shot. The lack of dust mean nothing.

The lack of dust is highly significant for pegging it as being shot before the 1st Collapse. The row of squarish blobs of light in the middle of the street further narrow the timing, by deduction from the relative height of the sun, so we know the bravenewworld clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
is the earliest of Gedeon's Church-Murray shots, because the row of squarish blobs of light (westward morning sunlight reflected back eastward off the windows of the visible Emigrant Savings Bank on the SW corner of Church-Murray) are more eastward than in the other Church-Murray clips. More eastward means more acute angle of reflection means lower sun means earlier.

> And you know absolutely nothing about the editing process, do you?

I think I've learned a thing or two in my time but I could be wrong. Thanks for keeping your disagreement fact- and experience-based.

Ray Ubinger

DavidJames

30th June 2006, 04:27 PM

I think I've learned a thing or two in my time...may I suggest the next thing on your list be the quote function?

;)

Ray Ubinger

30th June 2006, 04:35 PM

chran writes:

> The only thing you have, are people looking up suddenly and you claim it's happening at 8:46am.

No, I also have the location pegged to within sight of WTC and the timing pegged to well before the 1st Collapse.

> What is your basis for that claim?

Lighting comparison to other shots of the same intersection on the same morning.

> They could be looking at, and reacting to, the collapse of one of the towers.

No, because there's no dust yet, and LATER clips from the SAME LOCATION are also still dust-less. We know those clips are later by how the row of squarish blobs of light in the middle of Church St. move.

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

30th June 2006, 04:48 PM

:eye-poppi

Watch out for the round thingies.

:confused:

-Andrew

For starters see

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

http://tinyurl.com/63zle

http://thewebfairy.com/911/newwhatzits

http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/blackbird

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

30th June 2006, 04:58 PM

60hzxtl writes:

> Flipping a shot to avoid a jump cut, or make screen direction is fine - (see the funeral tangent) you are not altering the facts, just making the transition - its not like flipping a shot of plane 2 and its direction of travel so as to represent it as plane 1.

Except it is like that in the case of the Gorumba funeral scene, because if you un-mirror-image the shot, the truck would be driving the wrong way.
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm

My explanation is that the truck really was driving the wrong way, and not because the real funeral had a drunk truck driver, but because they ACCIDENTALLY filmed that truck driving the wrong way at the FAKE version of the funeral. I submit that the shots of "the" funeral that have Tony in them, were not shot at the real funeral.
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/crowd.htm

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

30th June 2006, 05:09 PM

>> Phone 919-560-0700
for the Durham County, North Carolina, Board of Rigged Elections
and ask them how a dozen current office holders got to have UNANIMOUS tallies, just like Saddam Hussein in 2002. They will straightforwardly admit that they simply discarded all votes cast for anyone else.

Gravy writes:

> We asked for a source for your claim that the Board of Elections openly admits to falsifying the talies on a routine basis.

And I gave you their phone number and told you how they admit throwing votes away if you ask them to explain my county's dozen "unanimously" "elected" current office holders.

> Provide it or shut up.

Shut up or explain why you don't think throwing away votes (cast by legally registered voters for constitutionally eligible persons) constitutes falsifying the tally.

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

30th June 2006, 05:20 PM

>>> [Y]ou [Ray Ubinger] endorse a theory that friends of my family were on a "blob" that hit the north tower.

>> No, I have never stated anything about where friends of your family ever were. I think NO people were on the Cessna-sized, missile-shaped thing that Jules Naudet photographed emitting an intense white flash just before it hit the north tower.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig/flashframe.jpg

http://missilegate.com

Gravy writes:

> Oh? You said a "blob" hit the north tower.

True, in almost all frames but the Flash Frame, it is much less identifiably missile-shaped, and much more a randomly curvy, half-sideways "U", for example the first missilegate frame
http://missilegate.com/000.htm

But in the Flash Frame
http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig/flashframe.jpg
it has what seems to me an instant of nakedness, with much cleaner shape definition.

> These people were on flight 11

which the Bureau of Transportation Statistics database said (until 2004) was not even scheduled to fly that day

> 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?

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

30th June 2006, 05:25 PM

>> Re-enactments that are put into a DOCUMENTARY without being CALLED re-enactments are called LIES.

Andrew Gumboot writes:

> That may be, but it's also very common.

So you agree the Naudets are bald-faced liars who altered their own raw footage on several occasions and inserted Tony into scenes he wasn't really at?

> Ever heard of the world's first documentary? It's called Nanook of the North.

The title rings a bell, slightly.

> Have a read about the "lies" in that film.

Why?

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

30th June 2006, 05:32 PM

orphia nay writes:

> September 2001 was a trying time for Ray.

and billions of other people.

> Lucky he's got his acting career to fall back on.

I wish! I've never gotten paid for the acting, and almost never for the singing. The violining could possibly be some regular small cash on the side if I would stay in practice, but it's a lot harder than acting or singing, for me.

> Of course, according to Ray's dodgic, James Hanlon couldn't be a real firefighter because he's had success as an actor since 9/11.

Hanlon's TV acting resume goes back six years PRIOR to S11.
http://imdb.com/name/nm0360137/

> Ray, you could clear your name by honestly admitting your bias & errors and by pointing out for others where you've gone wrong.

I slightly misquoted Jamal Braithwaite's line about how everyone was looking up. I apologize for quoting from fallible memory.

Ray Ubinger

Gravy

30th June 2006, 05:45 PM

Why ZERO footage from 8:46 a.m. at the firehouse where the Naudet movie narration says Gedeon Naudet was at that time? We're talking about a zillion-alarm call right where the supposedly prepared documentarian was hanging around with the alleged rookie-subject of the alleged documentary. The Naudets' whole alleged purpose was to document "a boy becoming a man." They got several shots of him reacting to previous calls which didn't turn out to be serious fires. If footage existed by Gedeon, allegedly still at the firehouse, at 8:46, why would it not be included in the movie?

Because Gedeon was already out in the street MURDERING!!!!

The Fire writes:
> Because it was of no interest to the story.

It was of central interest to the story: their subject Tony would finally be getting a fire to go to. They specifically, sarcastically lament how all they had up until then was "a great cooking show."
You can bet Gedeon had his mind on cooking...human flesh fresh from his morning's MURDERS!!!!

> The goalpost of the finished product changed with the attack. IT was no longer the story of a firefighter, but of the worst terror attack to be recorded in modern times. As such what happens back at the relative safety of the firehouse is of no interest. What happens out on the street is.
And what's happening on the street is...MURDER MOST FOUL!!!!

So why does Gedeon, after filming the 2nd Hit
walk back to the firehouse and film rookie Tony manning the phone?
Perhaps he was tired of...MURDERING!!!!

> Finally there are the possibility that Gedeon were there 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?
Or maybe he was on prescription-strength...MURDER PILLS!!!!

>> The narration says that Gedeon sent Jules out at 8:30 to cover the alleged odor of alleged gas.
Or was it the stench of a dozen preplanted babies that Gedeon Naudet had...MURDERED????

Their alleged subject, the alleged rookie Tony Benetatos, was not on that call, he stayed back at the firehouse. Gedeon's job at that point, if he really was the only one of the two of them who was still with their alleged subject Tony at the firehouse, and if they really were serious about documenting Tony's boy-becomes-man story, would be to be stand ready to film any action arising with Tony.
Or perhaps the alleged Gedeon allegedly stayed behind with the alleged rookie allegedly named Tony in order to...MURDER HIM!!!!

> As I've said: There are more things going on behind the scenes of a shoot than you seem to know about.
Especially when the shoot is a... MURDER-SHOOT!!!!

You've also just provided the deathblow to your theory about foreknowledge: Gedeon were there because they were waiting for action, in this case for the subject to be called out on something a bit more serious than a gasleak which weren't there.
Ray Ubinger has just subjected the English language to...MURDER!!!!

But the zillion-alarm call at 8:46 didn't qualify? And then why did Gedeon say he WALKED from firehouse to WTC at 8:46? He caught rides on the firetrucks for all the previous dispatches that he filmed. Didn't any firemen drive from the 100 Duane Street firehouse (where Gedeon allegedly was at 8:46) to the WTC, at 8:46?
No, because they had all been...MURDERED!!!!

(Note: The quote someone posted from an article about the Naudet movie, wherein Gedeon is said to have ridden in a pickup truck with three firemen, was from Gedeon's THIRD venture down Church St. that morning. That ride is in the movie--it's when they just HAPPEN to catch a cameo of Rudy Giuliani walking up Church St., and the WTC-2 dust is already everywhere.)
Rudy Giuliani in a shameless cameo on 9/11? MURDER HIM!!!!

And by the way aren't GAS LEAKS "quite serious" enough, contrary to the Naudet firemen's no-big-deal attitude on their way to the alleged odor of alleged gas at Church & Lispenard at 8:30? See the pictures in Les Raphael's article of the 2001 Father's Day fire which started as a gas leak and claimed the lives of three FDNYers. This horrific incident somehow merits no mention in the Naudet film, despite that it was big news to FDNY and occurred in the Naudets' first week of filming. I figure they knew that if they mentioned it, they could not later use the carefully prepared lines about the 9/11 gas odor call being no big deal.
Les Raphael? Didn't they send him away for...MURDERING LOGIC????

>> Also you should say who you think filmed
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
at Church & Murray at 8:46, if you believe Gedeon was at the firehouse then. The clip doesn't go away just because THEY don't say who filmed it.
Just as a murderer's soul will always be stained by...MURDER!!!!

> I'm not commenting on that since I don't know New York and as such cannot be certain that the clip is shot where you said.
Observe the matching location details:
Reaction Shot at top, shot at 8:46; at bottom, ADMITTED footage by Gedeon Naudet from after the 2nd Hit but before the 1st Demolition:
More admitted Gedeon Naudet footage at the same intersection:
Church-Murray photographed in 2005 by Nico Haupt
Church-Murray photographed in 2006 by Google Earth:
Nico Haupt? Didn't she sing with the Velvet Underground just before Andy Warhol was nearly...MURDERED????

> That clip doesn't say anything except someone, one person looking at the sky.
Looking at the sky, but thinking of...MURDER!!!!

First of all it's at least three people reacting--Gray T Shirt man, Briefcase man, and the infamous so-called 'Condi Rice lookalike'. Moreover, by the known location, the direction they're reacting in is the direction of WTC two blocks away. The view of WTC from this location is actually shown in the clip

and it doesn't show the date it was shot.
Murder.

The lack of dust mean nothing.
Kemosabe, lack of dust mean everything when fingering...MURDERER!

The lack of dust is highly significant for pegging it as being shot before the 1st Collapse. The row of squarish blobs of light in the middle of the street further narrow the timing, by deduction from the relative height of the sun, so we know the bravenewworld clip...
Squarish blobs? or MURDEROUS squarish MURDEROUS blobs????

...is the earliest of Gedeon's Church-Murray shots, because the row of squarish blobs of light (westward morning sunlight reflected back eastward off the windows of the visible Emigrant Savings Bank on the SW corner of Church-Murray) are more eastward than in the other Church-Murray clips. More eastward means more acute angle of reflection means lower sun means earlier.
...Means MURDER!!!!

> And you know absolutely nothing about the editing process, do you?
I think I've learned a thing or two in my time but I could be wrong. Thanks for keeping your disagreement fact- and experience-based.
And MURDER-based!!!!

Ray Ubinger
Ray Ubinger, the famous MURDERER who was once jailed for carrying a concealed .22-caliber pistol with MURDEROUS intent like that attempted-MURDERER John Hinckley????

Listen up everyone!!!! I know who killed those 2,749 people in New York on 9/11. Forget about al Qaeda! Forget about the Illuminati! Forget about Dick Cheney! Forget about the New World Order! The killer is...

Please don't use size 7 type.

Gravy

30th June 2006, 05:47 PM

...That Ubinger of doom,

RAY UBINGER,

MURDERER!!!!

Ray Ubinger

30th June 2006, 05:50 PM

>> Why should I have to petition for my vote to count if you don't have to petition for your vote to count? Were you just born better than me?

60hzxtl writes:

> So I think we can conclude that there is no subject on earth that you can not talk through your hat about.

Do you deny that the N.C. Board of Elections throws away votes due to lack of a petition qualifying those votes to count? Have you not read the statute I cited, which explicitly orders certain votes not to be counted, even if they are cast by legally registered voters for constitutionally eligible persons?

> Cattle prods?

http://tinyurl.com/eawju
aka
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/prod/dialspace/town/pipexdsl/q/aqrf00/ubinger//syringe3.jpg

> Big ol' hypo needle?

No, regular sized.

http://911foreknowledge.com/syringe.jpg

and

http://tinyurl.com/8tnou
aka
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/prod/dialspace/town/pipexdsl/q/aqrf00/ubinger/syringe1.jpg

and the third vid excerpt at
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm

> Try Halligan tool.

http://images.google.com/images?q=%22halligan+tool%22&hl=en

The "syringe" is not a Halligan tool because the "syringe" isn't several feet long. The "cattleprod" isn't a Halligan tool because the "cattleprod" ends in a single pointy rod part, unlike the Halligan tool's double-headed hook-like arrangement.

Irrespective of the identity of these objects, there are still TWO different shots of Mr. Backofhead jabbing his right arm toward Father Judge. Ergo the Naudets are lying again, when they say they had only one camera there, or else the jabbing itself was a repeated action.

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

30th June 2006, 05:53 PM

> Because Gedeon was already out in the street MURDERING!!!!

I've only ever claimed he was an accessory, working on the murderers' propaganda team. What's your evidence that my conclusion isn't strong enough?

Gravy

30th June 2006, 05:54 PM

It's HIM!!!!

Gravy

30th June 2006, 05:55 PM

Ray Ubinger

30th June 2006, 06:03 PM

Gravy

30th June 2006, 06:06 PM

Ray Ubinger

30th June 2006, 06:09 PM

>>> Gedeon was already out in the street MURDERING!!!!

>> I've only ever claimed he was an accessory, working on the murderers' propaganda team. What's your evidence that my conclusion isn't strong enough?

> With accessories like that, who needs a whole ensemble????

Accessories like cameraman? And you have evidence that cameras were the murder weapons?

Gravy

30th June 2006, 06:12 PM

Help! Someone is MURDERING me!!!!

MURDERING me most foully!!!!

I can just make out his hideous face....

It is the face of.....

gasp......choke.....cough.....death rattle....

Ray Ubinger

30th June 2006, 06:13 PM

>> 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.

> Don't play the lackwit with me, Mr. Ray Ubinger!

No entry found for "lackwit" at
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lackwit

What flaw if any you find in my argument that the bravenewworld clip is footage of pedestrian reaction at the instant of the first hit?

Gravy

30th June 2006, 06:15 PM

...Sputter.....wheeze...hack....gasp....

...the face of...

Gravy

30th June 2006, 06:17 PM

Just needed to take a break to point this out folks.

No entry found for "lackwit" at
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lackwit

Lisa Simpson

30th June 2006, 06:37 PM

Uh, Gravy? Take a couple deep breaths, okay?

Ray Ubinger

30th June 2006, 06:41 PM

Ray Ubinger

30th June 2006, 06:56 PM

>> What objection if any do you still have to my argument that the bravenewworld clip was shot at Church & Murray, or my argument that it was shot at the instant of the 1st Hit?

> Prove that the streeet was closed at 8:46.

You won't let me, creep. I keep showing you the footage of a street that you yourself insisted was blocked. You keep not denying that that is the footage you were referring to when you said it was footage of an obviously blocked street. And indeed the blocking is obvious, by the lack of vehicle traffic and by the presence of rubble and trash cans in the street. And then I keep referring you to my argument that that street is Church at Murray as shot at 8:46. But you keep refusing to say what flaw if any you find in my argument that the blocked-street footage is footage of Church-Murray at 8:46.

> If you can't do that, your theory fails.

No, it is incidental, Church-Murray did not absolutely HAVE to be blocked, though the blocking did make Gedeon's job (filming pedestrian reaction at instant of 1st Hit) easier.

However, I do absolutely concede that if you can show Church St. just south of Murray St. was NOT blocked at 8:46, that would totally defeat my theory, because my theory is absolutely committed to that clip being of Church-Murray at 8:46, and that clip obviously is of a blocked street.

Ray Ubinger

gumboot

30th June 2006, 07:00 PM

It was of central interest to the story: their subject Tony would finally be getting a fire to go to.

Someone didn't watch the documentary very closely...

According to the doco the first alarm was a 3-alarm fire, according to the New York Times it was a 5-alarm.

The fire crews from Tony's station were not at the station, they were out on the street. They, in fact, called in the fire to dispatch, on the way down to the WTC.

Why, exactly, would dispatch sound an alarm in a fire house, if they already knew the engines from that firehouse were on route?

Secondly, Tony wasn't there that morning. He came in later - hence why he missed the gas leak.

Did you even watch the documentary before inventing your conspiracy?

So why does Gedeon, after filming the 2nd Hit
walk back to the firehouse and film rookie Tony manning the phone and watching TV?

You really didn't watch it very hard did you? Gideon couldn't get to the WTC because the police sealed the area off. To quote "I was not going to get any closer to the World Trade Centre". He didn't know what to do. Stand on the street filming the top of a burning building? No doubt he felt very alone and scared, so he headed for safety - the firehouse.

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?

The firemen from their station were at the gas leak. Got it? They weren't at the station.

Their alleged subject, the alleged rookie Tony Benetatos, was not on that call, he stayed back at the firehouse.

Negative. Tony wasn't there at all. When Gedeon got back to the fire house Tony told him that when he arrived no one was there. He came in LATE (it was never explained if he was scheduled to come in later or if he just missed his bus or whatever).

But the zillion-alarm call at 8:46 didn't qualify? And then why did Gedeon say he WALKED from firehouse to WTC at 8:46? He caught rides on the firetrucks for all the previous dispatches that he filmed. Didn't any firemen drive from the 100 Duane Street firehouse (where Gedeon allegedly was at 8:46) to the WTC, at 8:46?

No. Because the firemen were attending a gas leak. Or did you forget that detail? They were the first ones at the WTC because they SAW the plane hit, and THEY notified dispatch, and THEY went straight to the WTC. The 3-alarm call came AFTER all this. So why would dispatch send an alarm to a fire house that was already on its way?

The clip doesn't go away just because THEY don't say who filmed it.

Their documentary used a lot of footage from a lot of different sources. Not all of it was theirs - they were shooting on two little handycams using camera sound. There was at least some footage with a much larger camera and a separate soundman recording to DAT (as identified by their shadows).

-Andrew

Gravy

30th June 2006, 07:02 PM

Please don't use size 7 type.
Aww, nothing less will do for responding to the super-creepiest of them all.

gumboot

30th June 2006, 07:08 PM

Gravy

30th June 2006, 07:08 PM

That's not a fair statement of the thesis of Les's article. 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.

Crappy shot, barely caught. You, yourself say you can't even identify the plane as a large airliner, Ray Ubinger. You call it a "Cessna-sized blob."

Is there any end to your intellectual cowardice?

Please don't answer. Just take your sick accusations and go away.

gumboot

30th June 2006, 07:14 PM

That's not a fair statement of the thesis of Les's article. 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.

Which is absolute nonsense. There are dozens of far superior accidental shots of the 2nd hit, once everyone was looking at the WTC.

The Naudet footage of the first hit is not a great shot at all. 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.

Les' "69 conveniences" are laughable. Virtually all of them are utterly identical. It is a work of complete nonsense. I fail to comprehend how anyone can swallow such bile.

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.

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.

And it's comments like that which make me agree firmly with Gravy's assessment of you...

-Andrew

Ray Ubinger

1st July 2006, 01:26 AM

Ray Ubinger discovers editing and mistakes it for conspiracy.

"Editing" like making the Gorumba funeral procession NOT reverse direction?
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm

"Editing" like showing two different shots of Mr. Backofhead's right arm stabbing toward Father Judge (whose left hand slides down from Chief Pfeifer's right shoulder) when there was supposedly only one camera there?
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm

"Editing" like depicting Pfeifer as fully-suited-up, and as missing the carrying of Judge's body through the street, but then showing a photograph of Pfeifer PRESENT for that corpse-carry through the street, and wearing different clothes? (white short-sleeved garrison uniform, not full firefighter gear)
http://www.saintmychal.com/photos.htm
big photo about 1/3 down page
Pfeifer at far left

Ray Ubinger

orphia nay

1st July 2006, 03:26 AM

orphia nay

1st July 2006, 03:42 AM

chran

1st July 2006, 04:12 AM

"Editing" like making the Gorumba funeral procession NOT reverse direction?
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm Ok, so what does this have to do with conspiracy theories about 9/11?
"Editing" like showing two different shots of Mr. Backofhead's right arm stabbing toward Father Judge (whose left hand slides down from Chief Pfeifer's right shoulder) when there was supposedly only one camera there?
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm Syringes? Gun barrels? Murders captured on film?

What does ANY of this have to do with the Naudet brothers being "in" on 9/11? Or ANYTHING at all for that matter?

Btw, the "syringe" looks an awful lot like the gas detector used in the footage from the 1st tower-hit.

orphia nay

1st July 2006, 04:39 AM

Yes, I agree, chran. What does the Naudets' editing have to do with 19 jihadists?

I forgot to say, thanks, Andrew, and right back at you.

I should be back to reply to more of Ray's posts tomorrow.

60hzxtl

1st July 2006, 06:29 AM

Good ol' Ray! Not only were the Naudet's in on it, they edited it, and released all the details, for all to see, and only Ray is smart enough to see it!

That hole in your hat that you talk through is getting bigger and bigger.

As for film makers, I suggest you try the films of Fred Wiseman - he turns the camera on, and lets it run. (and run, and run, and run. . . ) We call it raw film or raw video. Unedited film becomes unwatchable to the lay man; the difference between a transcript of a conference, and a report of a conference.

Ray is just having fun with himself - you choose the descriptive term for it - going on and on about things he does not understand. Your conspiracies equal "I've never seen it, so it has to be a bad thing." and "CIA man in white shirt, bad, bad CIA man." (me I think the guy in the white shirt is DARPA or ONI, myself, just based on that wet finger I stuck in the air.)

Maybe the safest place for you is public office. You can do less damage there than spitting on the graves of the FDNY, and expressing the boogieman did it theory about people, (the Naudet's included) who have the fortitude to stay the course of their job and profession, when it may cost them their lives, rather than grabbing their magic hat and talking through it from the safety of their political office.

The more I think about it, the more you DO belong at the public trough.

You don't need to know much about anything to be a politican. You are very qualified.

gumboot

1st July 2006, 07:48 AM

Ok, so what does this have to do with conspiracy theories about 9/11?
Syringes? Gun barrels? Murders captured on film?

What does ANY of this have to do with the Naudet brothers being "in" on 9/11? Or ANYTHING at all for that matter?

Btw, the "syringe" looks an awful lot like the gas detector used in the footage from the 1st tower-hit.

Oh by the way...

The "syringe" is a pen and the Chief is using another fireman's back to write on (you can see him lifting up a bit of paper as well)

The "gun barrel" is a 2-way radio (walkie-talkie). I should know - I use one on every single film job. The RTs (that's what we call them here) the firemen are seen using in the lobby are identical to the ones we use here in the film industry.

-Andrew

chran

1st July 2006, 08:05 AM

All right, thanks for clearing that up, Andrew!

Regnad Kcin

1st July 2006, 09:56 AM

Regnad Kcin

1st July 2006, 10:29 AM

Regnad Kcin writes:

> [A]ny suggestion (by you, Leslie Rapael, or others) that there was something extraordinarily suspicious about filmmakers capturing the first hit on the north tower is rather silly.

That's not a fair statement of the thesis of Les's article. 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.Crappy shot, barely caught. You, yourself say you can't even identify the plane as a large airliner, Ray Ubinger. You call it a "Cessna-sized blob."I second Gravy.

Moreover, your sinister-sounding "perfect place" ignores my earlier point: much of the upper portions of the Twin Towers were visible from large areas of Manhattan Island (and other points, but we're concerning ourselves with the film makers' location on 9/11).

What would be a hypothetical example of something you would agree is circumstantial evidence in support of such a conclusion, if not the sorts of conditions Les lays out has having enabled the shot? Where would have been a better place to film it from, for example?Surely you can't be serious.

And if it's so unsuspicious, how come it's also so perfect and unique?Except it isn't. It's momentary, not fully in focus, and distant.

Oh, and something can't be really unique, very unique, or "so...unique." The word unique means "one of a kind," not some form of extra-special.

> There exists these days no small number of personal hand-held video cameras, cell-phone cameras, and digital still cameras.

You raise what would be valid points against a conclusion that no one should have been able to film the first hit at all, but that's a straw man.Humor me.

Les's line of reasoning is about how perfect and unique Jules' shot was, not just that he got it at all.Except...the "line of reasoning" is weak to non-existent. People film random occurences every day, especially in the big city. And a large jet aircraft flying at low altitude, at high throttle, over NYC doesn't happen all the time.

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, 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.

Be that as it may, one can raise suspicions all day long. Questions aren't proof.

"Pavel Hlava" also appears to have been on the Naudet-FDNY propaganda team, by the way:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pavelI'm not in the habit of clicking on links unless the poster first summarizes the relevant points.

Gravy

1st July 2006, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by Ray Ubinger :
Where would have been a better place to film it from, for example?
Surely you can't be serious.
Oh, that is hilarious! Maybe Ray's best so far.

60hzxtl

1st July 2006, 06:26 PM

Ray Ubinger for Senate!

Ray Ubinger does not know what he's talking about, but that doesn't stop him!

Ray Ubinger would throw his hat in the ring, but right now he's busy talking through it!

Ray Ubinger - a politican who knows EVERYTHING!

Ray Ubinger will analyze it to death, even if he has no experience at it.

What more could you ask from a politican?

orphia nay

2nd July 2006, 01:39 AM

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?

orphia nay

2nd July 2006, 02:52 AM

Andrew Gumboot writes:

> IMDB credits three cinematographers on this documentary.

Yes, and I think the movie credits list a few additional cameraman (never mentioned in the narrative), or maybe it's just additional S11 FOOTAGE like Camera Planet or whoever got the shots like the ones from the air and out over the harbor.

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.

Ray Ubinger

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.
You can't prove that Gedeon filmed that footage - you just admitted others could have done so. You came in here with your extraordinary claims - the burden of proof is on you to prove that the road was closed at 8:46am, that there was debris in the street, that Gedeon filmed that footage and lied about it, and that's just for starters.

gumboot

2nd July 2006, 02:58 AM

I have to say the Naudet conspiracy line is by far my favourite. While the "government did it" and "concrete core" ones achieve a certain high rating on the insanity meter, they tended to plateau very quickly and maintain a constant level.

In comparison the Naudet conspiracy just gets better at every turn. Apparantly now an element of the overall plot was for the firemen to take a pistol and a syringe into the WTC for the purpose of murdering the fire department chaplain...

Mr Ubinger, before I lose all respect for you, please clarify. Do you honestly believe this is even remotely logical and reasonable?

-Andrew

Ray Ubinger

3rd July 2006, 04:48 PM

> My guess is that it shows audience reaction to one of the towers beginning to fall.

No, because then it would have to be after the pre-1st-Collapse (no Dust yet) shots of the same street location as here:
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/c...tiondebris.htm
(Or for quicker comparison use this pair of still screens:
http://tinyurl.com/dvxft
)

The bravenewworld clip has to be earlier, by the lighting. Proof:

In both clips, the windows of the building (Emigrants Savings Bank) at the SW corner of Church-Murray, are casting a row of squarish light blobs down onto the middle of Church Street. This is westward morning sunlight reflected back eastward.

The row of squarish light blobs is FARTHER east in the EARLIER clip when the sun is LOWER and the angle of reflection more ACUTE:
http://911foreknowldge.com/bravenewworld.htm
(EARLIER)

The row of squarish light blobs is LESS easterly, farther WEST, in the LATER clips when the sun is HIGHER and the angle of reflection more OBLIQUE:
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/c...tiondebris.htm
(LATER)

orphia nay writes:

> Which light blobs? You mean the dust?

No I don't mean the dust. I mean the row of four or more squarish blobs of LIGHT running down the middle of Church Street, in both the bravenewworld clip and the later clips taken of the same part of that street:

http://tinyurl.com/dvxft

In the top shot (taken at 8:46, I claim), the light blobs are farther away from (more east than) the trash can in the middle of the street.

In the bottom shot (post-2nd-Hit, pre-1st-Collapse), the light blobs have moved more westward, CLOSER to that same trash can.

I submit this MOVING row of squarish blobs of light must be reflections of westward morning sunlight back eastward, reflected by the windows of the building (Emigrant Savings Bank) on the SW corner of Church-Murray.

When the row of squarish blobs of light is farther east, the time is earlier, because the morning sun is lower and the angle of reflection is more acute.

When the row of squarish blobs of light is farther west, the time is later, because the morning sun is higher and the angle of reflection is less acute.

Now, since there's no dust yet in the second of the two screenshots
http://tinyurl.com/dvxft
it follows that the second shot is pre-1st-Collapse.

But, the first shot is earlier than the second shot, by the position of the row of window reflections into the middle of the street.

Therefore, I was saying, you are mistaken to conjecture that the first shot (bravenewworld) could have been a reaction to the 1st Collapse. Because, there is provably later footage, of the exact same location, in which the 1st Collapse dust still isn't present.

> Go, on Ray, prove the street was closed at the time of the first hit.

This request is just a distraction. Nobody denies that the street was blocked during the filming of the bravenewworld clip. So the request to prove the street blocked during the 1st Hit just amounts to another way to request I prove that the bravenewworld clip was shot during the first hit. That request, I have been forthrightly addressing for a couple weeks now.

> AND that there was no debris at that time.

I don't get this request. You're saying YOU think maybe the Church-Murray debris that was depicted as plane parts from the 2nd Hit, was already visible at 8:46?? Even I don't think that. I don't think the perps were that dumb. I think they kept the alleged plane debris hidden among all that sidewalk scaffolding, and then unveiled it on cue during the distraction-panic of the 2nd Hit. (I hold that neither Tower was hit by a plane.)

I do say this much, though: The same rubble and yellow caution tape and sidewalk scaffolding visible when the alleged 2nd Hit plane parts showed up, are visible in the background of the bravenewworld clip.

> AND that Gedeon wasn't at the firehouse.

I can't prove that, at least not yet, but the only evidence that he was there is the word of the lying Naudet team itself. (Liars because they dubbed audio from one TV clip onto video from another, they inserted Tony into scenes he wasn't at, and they cut out a lot of frames from their 2nd Hit shot. All previously sourced by me, but I'll repost the links on request.)

The bravenewworld clip had to be shot by someone, and Gedeon is at least the obvious best guess, because the location exactly matches ADMITTED Gedeon footage from elsewhere in the movie. He is specifically depicted as going down and up Church Street three times that morning.

If Gedeon was at the firehouse at 8:46 as claimed, then the foreknowledge-enabled clip of pedestrian reaction at 8:46 would have to have been shot by someone else on the Naudet-FDNY team, like James Hanlon who claims, "I was off that day." Personally, though, I suspect Hanlon was playing the part of "Pavel Hlava" at 8:46, and the so-called Cheney 2nd Hit cameraman at 9:03, because the camera for both those shots exhibits similar, glaring problems with green and purple color spikes.
Comapre
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pavel
http://911foreknowledge.com/setup.htm

> AND that anyone else was filming other than the two brothers.

I admit additional cameramen are credited. Hanlon calls Hanlon himself a third cameraman, at least during when they're allegedly filming Tony's boot camp. I figure this is to be able to explain who later shot the clip of the reunited Jules AND Gedeon, hugging each other.

> AND that they had footage of the first hit other than Jules' footage.

Again, "Pavel Hlava," the alleged Czech immigrant (related to the glass blower with the same name, who had recently died?) -- who for some reason was riding with the FDNY from Brookly toward Manhattan at 8:46.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pavel

> AND that the Naudets were told to be wherever they were at whatever time. AND by whom they were told to be there.

Those would be helpful to my proof but they are not necessary. If my proof holds water that the bravenewworld clip is of pedestrian reaction at the instant of the 1st Hit, then the Naudets ought to explain how they managed to get it.

> (BTW, the Emigrant Savings bank (http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=362440) is next door to that building.)

Next door to what building? I agree your link shows the ESB. I say that is the same as the building in the left foreground of
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
and that it is the same as the building on the right at the END of the pre-2nd-Hit admitted Gedeon Naudet clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm
All three are the ESB.

Ray Ubinger
I apologize to all who have brought it up, that my use of the Quote button, which I'm doing my best with, is still hampered by when I need to quote more than one level back in the conversation. I asked for help on this point but didn't see any answers.

Mr. Skinny

3rd July 2006, 05:04 PM

Ray Ubinger
I apologize to all who have brought it up, that my use of the Quote button, which I'm doing my best with, is still hampered by when I need to quote more than one level back in the conversation. I asked for help on this point but didn't see any answers.
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].

Ray Ubinger

3rd July 2006, 05:22 PM

I have taken a look at Ray's pics of the airliner's main undercarriage. I noticed it was surrounded by yellow tape.

I think the things at Church-Murray that were portrayed as 2nd Hit plane parts, were planted to support the story that real planes were used. I think these to-be-planted "plane parts" were kept out of sight, until the 2nd Hit, by construction scaffolding, possibly tarps directly over the parts, and that people were kept back from these things by yellow caution tape tied well out into the street already at 8:46 (as visible in the bravenewworld clip, i.e., the one Church-Murray clip which I claim was shot at 8:46). It think the 2nd Hit was the cue for the (possible) tarps to be removed and/or for rolling out the "plane parts," into view, from behind/underneath the (definite) scaffolding.

It appears to be the same tape as appears in the footage on the street, depicting people's reaction to the "first hit". One of these pieces of footage even has a guy with a radio in blue uniform with "FBI" all over it.

No, there is no "FBI" visible in the ONE Church-Murray clip which I contend was taken at 8:46:
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm

The yellow "construction" tape in the background all those street shots is identical in each.

Yep. So if you don't think bravenewworld was taken at 8:46, then I guess you must think that the yellow tape only went up after the 2nd Hit ... or else you think 2nd Hit "plane parts" somehow managed to land exactly in areas which had already been taped off?

The video supposedly taken by the second Naudet Brother of people reacting to the first hit is [...] as I suspected, footage taken post-9/11.

Sorry, no way, because that part of that street never looked that way again after the dust of the 1st Collapse.

Debris from the attacks litters the road and the area has been fenced off by yellow police tape. FBI agents appear on the perimeter. There is no traffic because the area has been sealed off from traffic.

Decent conjecturing with what you were going on, but you need to back up and realize how close this place was to the DUST that COATED downtown for a LONG time. AND again please note that there is NO "FBI" in the ONLY Church-Murray clip that I say was taken at 8:46.

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

3rd July 2006, 05:40 PM

By the time cleanup occurred days or weeks if not months later (and remember the movie was already broadcast by the 6-month anniversary), the rubble and trash cans and yellow tape all out in the middle of street would have been gone. They would not clean the dust off the street and then replace the rubble back onto the street.

So, you don't when cleanup occurred then? Perhaps they got the shots the next day. You can't really dispute this without any facts to back you up.

I admit taking it as common knowledge that the dust at Church-Murray (only two intersections from one of the corners of the WTC mega-block) was long lasting. I defy you to name any S11 researcher who disagrees.

More to the point, though: No matter how soon cleanup started, they still would not have put cleaned-up rubble pieces and a cleaned-up trashcan and cleaned-up yellow caution tape all back out exactly as they were on 9/11.

Did the dust perhaps blow away on it's own?

It was inches thick there!
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/bigjunk.htm
2/3 down the page

Was some rubble left remaining at a time, within 6 months, when the film crew could have gone for their shots?

You mean rubble AND trashcan out in middle of blocked street, AND yellow tape tied to that trash can out in middle of blocked street, AND sidewalk scaffolding at that same location, ALL still UNdisturbed since 9/11 BUT also cleansed of all the dust?

Perhaps the rubble was not from the event, but from some aftermath work - after the cleanup.

No, because the rubble is visible in various shots of that same location, all of which except bravenewworld are ADMITTEDLY taken on 9/11 by Gedeon Naudet. For instance the second of the two screenshots at
http://tinyurl.com/dvxft

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

3rd July 2006, 05:51 PM

Referring to
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
Gravy informs Chillzero:
The shot is certainly from 9/11, because after the towers and WTC 7 came down that area was completely covered in heavy dust and debris.

Thank you. Chillzero was apparently just innocently ignorant of that common knowledge.

A large part of an engine from flight 175 landed at Church & Murray St, and police put warning tape around it. So it's safe to assume that the street was blocked for a good deal of the time between when the planes hit and when the towers came down. Mr. Ubinger simply needs to show that the road was blocked at the time flight 11 hit.

No one denies that the bravenewworld clip is of a blocked Church Street just south of Murray. My argument that the time of that shot was 8:46, is part of the whole ongoing discussion. I have not ignored the question. It is an obviously fair question and I have said a lot in answer to it.

Ray Ubinger

Gravy

3rd July 2006, 05:52 PM

Still here Ray, and still unable to providea shred of proof for your sick accusations?

Be a man and show us all that Church & Murray was closed at 8:46 on 9/11. It's your claim to prove, not ours.

You've been asked to do this many times.

So stop whining and do it.

Then you will have taken one small step away from despicable creepdom. Won't it feel nice?

Ray Ubinger

3rd July 2006, 06:19 PM

Regarding the timing of the clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
I wrote:
>> 3. If it had been taken between 8:47 and 1st Collapse, it would not have begun the way it does, with NOBODY looking up, with everyone just walking along normally.

chran writes:
> Why not?

"It was like the whole world stopped; everyone was just looking up." -- fireman Jamal Braithwaite in the Naudet movie, about his ride to WTC-1 in response to the 1st Hit

It's a similie! It's used to describe something, not indicate that that's how it was.[QUOTE]

The fact that the bravenewworld clip starts with NOBODY (out of about a dozen people) looking up, marks it as qualitatively different from undisputed POST-1st-Hit shots, like

http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location1.htm
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location2.htm
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location3.htm
AND ESPECIALLY
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm
WHICH WAS TAKEN WITHIN SEVERAL FEET OF WHERE THE BRAVENEWWORLD CLIP WAS TAKEN.

Observe how much more crowded the street is in the location4 clip than in the bravenewworld clip, and how practically everybody is standing still and staring upward in the location4 clip, totally unlike the start of the bravenewworld clip.

chran:
>>> Not everybody was looking at the burning towers all the time.

Ray:
>> Maybe not quite everybody, but certainly somebody was.

chran:
> Uh, right.

Right indeed. By contrast, the bravenewworld clip starts with NOBODY looking up, with everyone just walking along normally.

[QUOTE=chran]But you really aren't seriously going to claim that President Bush commited mass murder, because some people weren't looking up?

My claim here is that because NOBODY was looking up at the START of the bravenewworld clip, because EVERYONE was just walking along normally, the bravenewworld clip was not taken between 1st Hit and 2nd Hit.

If you disagree, please substantiate your viewpoint by posting any undisputed post-1st Hit, pre-1st-Collapse shot of people within sight of WTC just walking along normally, nobody standing still, nobody looking up, nobody running away.

chran
>>> My guess is that it shows audience reaction to one of the towers beginning to fall.

me
>> No, because then it would have to be after the pre-1st-Collapse (no Dust yet) shots of the same street location as here:

http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/c...tiondebris.htm

(Or for quicker comparison use this pair of still screens:
http://tinyurl.com/dvxft

chran
> What does that show?

I have detailed this in an earlier post this evening in response to orphia nay. It has to do with the moving row of squarish blobs of light in the middle of Church Street. The changing position of those light blobs establishes that the bravenewworld clip was shot BEFORE OTHER footage of the SAME location which STILL wasn't Dusted yet. This in turn establishes that bravenewworld can not be a reaction at the instant of the 1st Collapse.

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

3rd July 2006, 06:49 PM

[QUOTE=Gravy;1744516]Be a man and show us all that Church & Murray was closed at 8:46 on 9/11.[QUOTE]

No one disputes that the bravenewworld clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
is of a blocked Church Street shortly south of Murray. So you are merely telling me to repeat my proof that that clip was shot at 8:46.

Be a man and admit that you yourself personally insisted that the bravenewworld clip is a clip of a blocked street.

Be a man and admit that the conclusion 'Church-Murray Was Blocked At 8:46' would follow directly from a proof that 'Bravenewworld Was Shot At 8:46.'

Be a man and admit that I have already been addressing for weeks now the question of the timing of the bravenewworld clip.

Y'all keep pretending some part of my argument goes, "Church-Murray was blocked at 8:46, THEREFORE..." No part of my argument actually goes like that. The blocking of Church-Murray at 8:46, apparently for greater ease in filming the obscure Naudet 1st Hit Pedestrian Reaction shot, is just an INCIDENTAL aspect of the scenario I'm putting forth. They MIGHT have tried filming that reaction WITHOUT blocking the street, but the undisputed fact turns out to be that the clip that I claim is 8:46 pedestrian reaction, is a clip of a blocked street. That much is self-evident by visual inspection.

I could go on about how the Church-Murray blocking connects to the blocking of Church-LISPENARD, for the FAMOUS Naudet 1st Hit IMPACT shot, and that both of those street blockings in turn connect to the blocking of the lane to the right of "Pavel Hlava" to enable HIS unobstructed 1st Hit shot, but that would just be ... gravy.

Ray Ubinger

Gravy

3rd July 2006, 06:53 PM

Be a man and stop whining. Prove that Church & Murray was closed at 8:46.

How many times do you have to be told that your beliefs don't matter? Why do you continue to post here without any evidence to back your claims?

Despicable.

Ray Ubinger

3rd July 2006, 07:02 PM

My second guess was going to be that the footage was taken post-hit but pre-collapse.

You mean post-2nd-Hit and pre-1st-Collapse? What then would the suddenly-reacting pedestrians be suddenly reacting to?

Also, I understand that the dust was hosed down to stop it spreading.

So what if it was?

Has the actual location for the claimed "First hit" footage been confirmed?

I believe Gravy himself posted a recent photo, taken by himself, which corroborates that the clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
was shot along the east gutter of Church Street, shortly south of Murray Street, looking north and west, toward the west half of the Church-Murray intersection.

According to FEMA's maps the significant pieces of aircraft debris landed well outside the significant areas of building collapse debris.

Cite, please? Thank you.

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

3rd July 2006, 07:20 PM

Can we get some confirmation on how quickly the aircraft debris was taped-off?
I'm sure Ray is working on that.
Yellow tape at the Church-Murray intersection (which is associated with alleged airplane debris from the 2nd Hit), is visible in the background of the clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm

If you think that that yellow tape didn't get put up until after the 2nd Hit, then what do you think the pedestrians in that clip are reacting to?

Also, I understand that the dust was hosed down to stop it spreading. Has the actual location for the claimed "First hit" footage been confirmed? If so, can we confirm the extent of debris at that location?

I don't know how much was hosed down, or when. All of lower Manhattan was covered with dust. The "first hit" footage was shot at Church & Lispenard, 14 blocks from the WTC.

Church-Lispenard is not the "claimed 'First hit' footage" Andrew was referring to. Church-Lispenard is UNDISPUTED 1st Hit footage. Andrew was referring to the bravenewworld footage, claimed (by me) to have been shot at 8:46.

Ray Ubinger

Gravy

3rd July 2006, 07:28 PM

Ray Ubinger, why are you posting here? People think you're a vicious idiot who has no evidence for his outrageous claims. You don't seem to care about that.

So what's your point, Ray Ubinger? What do you get out of continuing to present to your beliefs to people who are asking for evidence?

Just trolling then?

Ray Ubinger

3rd July 2006, 07:40 PM

Prove that Church & Murray was closed at 8:46.
See my proof that the bravenewworld clip (of an undisputedly closed Church & Murray) was shot at 8:46.

Ray Ubinger

kevin

3rd July 2006, 07:42 PM

According to FEMA's maps the significant pieces of aircraft debris landed well outside the significant areas of building collapse debris.

Cite, please? Thank you.

Ray Ubinger

Figure 1-4 of FEMA report 403: engine at Church and Murray, landing gear at 45 park place, landing gear at rector and west. Figure 1-7 maps building debris. furthest away appears to be barclay to the northeast, and albany to the southwest.

Ray Ubinger

3rd July 2006, 07:49 PM

[T]wo proposals OTHER than Ray's:

1) The [bravenewworld] footage was taken after UA175 had hit, and after the engine had been taped off, but before the buildings collapsed
Then what were the suddenly-reacting pedestrians suddenly reacting to?

2) The footage was taken after both buildings had collapsed, perhaps on a following day, and the present dust is either not noticable, or has been hosed away
I think even Gravy admits that intersection was blanketed in thick dust. This is really not disputable. It was just two blocks from Church-Vesey, which was the NE corner of the WTC megablock. The thickness and pervasiveness of the dust are visible in the Rick Leventhal interviews which also just happened to take place at the exact same intersection.

Spraying water on the Church-Murray dust could not both make all the dust disappear AND leave individually identifiable pieces of rubble in exactly the same position they were in during ADMITTED Gedeon Naudet footage of Church-Murray, from later in the movie than the disputed bravenewworld shot.

Ray Ubinger

Gravy

3rd July 2006, 08:59 PM

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

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

How many times do you have to be told that your beliefs are not evidence?

Your behavior is extremely irrational. Please seek professional help.

gumboot

3rd July 2006, 09:46 PM

orphia nay writes:

> Which light blobs? You mean the dust?

No I don't mean the dust. I mean the row of four or more squarish blobs of LIGHT running down the middle of Church Street, in both the bravenewworld clip and the later clips taken of the same part of that street:

Oh dear Ray. You need to stop hunting for communists under your bed. They are not "squarish blobs of light". They are patches of dust Ray. Not only are they in the same position in each shot, but their relative surface luminesence hasn't changed in each shot to reflect the change in light levels. You can assert all you want, but they are not what you think they are, and they do not move.

Lastly, reflected windows do not look like that, Ray. Glass skyscrapers act like giant mirrors. They slightly diffuse the light and you get great pools of light dozens of yards long, not neat little squares the size of a window.

I think they kept the alleged plane debris hidden among all that sidewalk scaffolding, and then unveiled it on cue during the distraction-panic of the 2nd Hit. (I hold that neither Tower was hit by a plane.)

You don't think maybe people gathered around might have noticed an airline jet turbine smashing into the ground at 500 MPH, followed by a rain of bits of metal and human remains?

(Liars because they dubbed audio from one TV clip onto video from another, they inserted Tony into scenes he wasn't at, and they cut out a lot of frames from their 2nd Hit shot. All previously sourced by me, but I'll repost the links on request.)

Ray, I know you find this hard to believe, but take it from a professional filmmaker; there is nothing strange or unique about the things you have described above - with the exception of the Tony funeral claim, which you have failed to prove (the shot that would have been flipped is the salute shot, and can be easily be explained as a shot that needed to be picked up later (the industry call them "pick-ups")). Filmmaking, be it drama or a documentary, is about story-telling, and there are many techniques that are used to tell those stories. These things you call "lies" are nothing more than story-telling techniques.

If Gedeon was at the firehouse at 8:46 as claimed, then the foreknowledge-enabled clip of pedestrian reaction at 8:46 would have to have been shot by someone else on the Naudet-FDNY team, like James Hanlon who claims, "I was off that day."

Your entire argument revolves on the claim that your "bravenewworld" clip was taken at the time of the 1st plane hit. So far you have provided no evidence to support this claim, while simultaneously demonstrating plenty of failure of video interpretation.

Personally, though, I suspect Hanlon was playing the part of "Pavel Hlava" at 8:46, and the so-called Cheney 2nd Hit cameraman at 9:03, because the camera for both those shots exhibits similar, glaring problems with green and purple color spikes.

Is that honestly the best you can do, Ray? What was the original format the footage was recorded in? What is its conversion history? At any stage it could easily pick up "noise", especially if it was moving from PAL to NTSC or other formats.

In contrast, Ray, I can push aside your silly claim with two questions. Why is the traffic making no attempt whatsoever to move out of the way of the fire engine - which you claim has its lights on? And second, why is this fire engine mysteriously so low off the ground? Is it a midgit fire engine? The relative car/camera perspective is not high enough to be a van, let alone a fire truck. Tell me Ray, did Hanlon book the FDNY's midgit fire engine that day? Do New York's law's dictate that traffic does not have to give way to midgit fire engines? Only full size ones?

-Andrew

Gravy

3rd July 2006, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by Ray Ubinger :
(I hold that neither Tower was hit by a plane.)
Oh.

I hadn't noticed this before. Yep, all the New Yorkers who saw this happen with their own eyes – thousands in the case of the first plane, hundreds of thousands in the case of the second plane – are wrong. The millions who saw the second strike live on TV have been deceived. Thousands of professional and amateur photos and videos have been expertly faked. All of the air traffic controllers are lying. All of the 767 debris and passenger remains was planted around lower Manhattan by an army of people who scampered out from hiding as soon as Ray's mystery objects struck. All of the phone calls were faked.

But Ray Ubinger knows the truth.

Ray, if you believe this, you are seriously disturbed, and should seek professional help.

Goodbye, and good luck.

Ray Ubinger

3rd July 2006, 10:34 PM

I'm leaning towards the bravenewworld (http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm) footage to be Gedeon's at the time of the second collapse.

That can't be right, because Gedeon's own post-1st-Collapse, pre-2nd-Collapse footage of Church-Murray -- during his ride down Church from the firehouse w/3 ff's in their red pickup truck -- shows that the dust from the 1st Collapse alone was sufficient to totally transform how Church-Murray looked.

In this BBC interview (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/02/september_11/forum/txt/naudet_transcript.txt) he says he was at the firehouse both at the time of the first hit (8:46am), and also when he saw the first collapse (9:59am)

Then I wonder who shot the second of the two clips at
http://911foreknowledge.com/soldier3.htm
wherein it seems to me the WTC-2 cloud is still in the process of chasing people up the street.

Then Gedeon gets a lift down there in a firetruck with some firemen who'd come in from home.

Not in a firetruck, just in a red pickup truck, is what the movie shows.

He says he saw the second tower collapse:

I wonder why we don't see footage of it by him. I suspect they felt it would overplay their hand of how "lucky" they were, that both brothers would have gotten footage of the 2nd collapse each from within about 100 yards of it.

In the bravenewworld clip, clip#1, and the two clips taken near Church & Murray (http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/constructiondebris.htm), clips #2 & 3, you can see he is walking up Church towards Murray, and he turns as an FBI agent walks past (clip#3 (and a man starts to point at what I believe is the dust cloud coming)).
If you mean the first dust cloud, then you just contradicted Gedeon's story that Gedeon was at firehouse during 1st Collapse.

I would guess that the firetruck was behind him before he started walking in clip#1.

Gedeon's pickup-truck-assisted trip down Church St. from firehouse to WTC was not until after WTC-2 collapse dust was already all over the place.

All the excerpts on the page
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/constructiondebris.htm
are from Church-Murray before 1st Collapse.

Church-Murray after 1st Collapse looked like a scene from the moon:
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/peopleindust.htm

Clip #1 shows more people to the right already looking up at the towers than in the bravenewworld2 footage. That footage with its dubbed-in sound is misleading. The people looking up are probably just checking on the building as it burns.

At least THREE people in the clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
SUDDENLY whirl their gaze around and/or up at the SAME TIME.

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

3rd July 2006, 10:46 PM

Regnad Kcin

3rd July 2006, 10:53 PM

(I hold that neither Tower was hit by a plane.)Oh.

I hadn't noticed this before. Yep, all the New Yorkers who saw this happen with their own eyes – thousands in the case of the first plane, hundreds of thousands in the case of the second plane – are wrong. The millions who saw the second strike live on TV have been deceived. Thousands of professional and amateur photos and videos have been expertly faked. All of the air traffic controllers are lying. All of the 767 debris and passenger remains was planted around lower Manhattan by an army of people who scampered out from hiding as soon as Ray's mystery objects struck. All of the phone calls were faked.

But Ray Ubinger knows the truth...Conspiracy theorists are simply a wonder to behold.

orphia nay

4th July 2006, 01:00 AM

Ray, I already admitted after posting that that there was probably too much dust for it to be filmed post any collapse. I did not contradict myself or Gedeon's statement that he was at the firehouse during 1st collapse, in that I was (most likely wrongly) assuming it could have been at the moment of the 2nd collapse.

I immediately posted a new theory:

Thanks, Gravy. In your photo, Gravy, I think Murray is one further street down. Compare with this map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.jpg). (I've also been researching the buildings on the west side of Church St.)
Still, it looks like there was plenty more dust at 10:28am than I thought.

Testing another theory - that Gedeon hasn't lied about his whereabouts. If Gedeon filmed that bravenewworld footage, it would have been filmed after 8:46am (1st hit) and before 9:59am (WTC2 collapse), both times when he was back at the firehouse.

According to Ray's mob (http://911foreknowledge.com/n2hit.htm), Gedeon filmed the second hit (9:03am), seen in footage taken from the corner of Church & Vesey in front of 5 World Trade Center (3 corners down from Church & Murray).
So, did he have time to drive down there 7 short blocks before 9:03am? I think it's possible. (If not, there are plenty of explanations other than Ray's delusional theory.)
Did he then have time to travel two and a half short blocks, film while walking for a few moments, and then get back to the firehouse in time to see the first collapse live on tv, as he said? I think it's possible. (Again, if not, there's no reason to jump to daft conclusions.)

Ray, as you yourself posted, other footage/cameramen are listed in the credits. How you can make the leap from not knowing who filmed which excerpts to this (http://911foreknowledge.com/) is beyond me:

the Naudets POINTEDLY UNDERPLAYED the gruesomeness expectation, by having Jules testify how he consciously decided AGAINST filming the "burning" person(s?).

Jules says with tears in his eyes: "I just didn't want to film that. It was like, no one, no one should have to see this." MEANING, I think, 'No one BUT US [the filmmakers] should GET to see it!'

This moment garnered them praise, in reviews, because of their commendable non-sensationalist "self-restraint," their "auto-censorship."

BUT THE SICK INSIDE JOKE IS ON US: THE MOVIE WE ARE WATCHING IS A *SNUFF FILM*, MADE BY *EVIL MEN*, *KILLERS* WHO *MOCK* US BY *BASKING* IN THE *PRAISES* WHICH THEY *CON* OUT OF US!

It smells like they murdered the Staten Island FDNY Probie (Michael Gorumba) on 8/28.
It smells like they murdered the FDNY Chaplain (Mychal Judge) and the brother of Battalion Chief Joseph Pfeifer (Lt. Kevin Pfeifer) on 9/11.

It smells like they murdered all those office workers, in the Towers.

It JUST PLAIN SMELLS.
--Ray Ubinger

The nicest thing I can say to you is that I feel compelled to urge you to seek psychological help for your own good.

Ray Ubinger

4th July 2006, 01:52 AM

If Gedeon filmed that bravenewworld footage, it would have been filmed after 8:46am (1st hit) and before 9:59am (WTC2 collapse), both times when he was back at the firehouse.
I would agree that the Naudet movie asserts that Gedeon was at the firehouse at 8:46. But the Naudet movie lies. But y'all are okay with that. But you would not be not okay with me lying.

According to Ray's mob (http://911foreknowledge.com/n2hit.htm), Gedeon filmed the second hit (9:03am), seen in footage taken from the corner of Church & Vesey in front of 5 World Trade Center (3 corners down from Church & Murray).[/QUOTE]
Thanks for reminding me it's three blocks from Vesey to Murray; recently I've been forgetting Barclay.

So, did he have time to drive down there 7 short blocks before 9:03am? I think it's possible.
You mean did he have time to WALK down there 7 blocks before 9:03? He specifically asserts that he WALKED from firehouse to WTC in response to the 1st Hit. Do you think that's possible?

Did he then have time to travel two and a half short blocks, film while walking for a few moments, and then get back to the firehouse in time to see the first collapse live on tv, as he said? I think it's possible.
You mean did he then have time to
walk all that distance,
PLUS
walk a detour one block west (to W. Broadway, AWAY from the 100 Duane St. firehouse to
the NE), in which he films the north ("exit") side of the recently hit South Tower,
AND
film the mystery debris,
plus film the gruff chase-away by the unmarked (CIA?) agent who just happened to be right there at the debris which also already had tape around it when Gedeon got there,
AND
film SEVERAL testimonials, like
the Smug Jamaican - 'It Was A Plane, It Was A Plane, We Saw It, It Was Two Planes'
the Well-Informed Indian - 'But What Will Those People Inside Do With All The Elevators Blocked?'
the Genuine Explosion Witness - 'It Went Boom, The Whole Building'
the Two Asians - 'One Plane On Tower One, Other On Tower Two' - one of whom Gedeon took the time to LAPEL-MICROPHONE-CLIP
the Bemused Middle-Aged Guy - 'This Is Like Something Out Of A Movie, It's Like The Towering Inferno'
AND then
get back to the firehouse in time to film (IN A SCENE LIT FROM BELOW?) the firehouse wall clock saying *9:30*, with Tony watching the TV next to the clock.

Do you think that's possible?

Ray Ubinger

chillzero

4th July 2006, 06:02 AM

Ray, as you yourself posted, other footage/cameramen are listed in the credits. How you can make the leap from not knowing who filmed which excerpts to this (http://911foreknowledge.com/) is beyond me:

Jules says with tears in his eyes: "I just didn't want to film that. It was like, no one, no one should have to see this." MEANING, I think, 'No one BUT US [the filmmakers] should GET to see it!'

Ray,
You're an idiot. I totally agree with Jules Naudet saying that no one should have to see this. No one on this earth should ever have to witness an event like 9/11. No one should ever be in a situation to stand on a street and watch people throw themselves from a high building to save themselves from being suffocated or roasted. No one should have to see something like this happen and then realise that it was no accident; that someone somewhere made it happen.

Your arguments don't make much sense, and you argue back in little splintered bits that don't add up. I was not ignorant about the problems created by the dust. I was pointing out where you were making assumptions - such as the most obvious one that you still have not addressed. Was this road closed prior to the first hit? If not, then your whole argument is invalid. You keep arguing that clearly the road is closed in the clip. No one is disputing that, but it gives an indication as to when this clip may have been obtained. If the road was open as normal that day, until the first hit, then you are wrong, and you need to admit that this is a later piece, edited in.

I think to persist in ridiculous conspiracy theories, such as denial of the existence of the planes, is a huge insult to those who died, and their families who remain. This has been pointed out to you in a personal manner above, and your response was disgusting. People lost people that day, and a horrendous thing was visited on the population. People like you twist the knife of loss further, and confuse and distort the information grieving people need to be able to take in, to manage their grieving processes.

orphia nay

6th July 2006, 01:35 AM

You mean did he have time to WALK down there 7 blocks before 9:03? He specifically asserts that he WALKED from firehouse to WTC in response to the 1st Hit. Do you think that's possible?

Yes. A few minutes with Mapquest and Google Maps shows it's (less than) 650metres. At a walking pace (though he could have hurried :rolleyes: ) of 5kph it would take him 7 minutes 48 seconds. Do you think that's possible?

You mean did he then have time to
walk all that distance,
PLUS
walk a detour one block west (to W. Broadway, AWAY from the 100 Duane St. firehouse to
the NE), in which he films the north ("exit") side of the recently hit South Tower,
AND
film the mystery debris,
plus film the gruff chase-away by the unmarked (CIA?) agent who just happened to be right there at the debris which also already had tape around it when Gedeon got there,
AND
film SEVERAL testimonials, like
the Smug Jamaican - 'It Was A Plane, It Was A Plane, We Saw It, It Was Two Planes'
the Well-Informed Indian - 'But What Will Those People Inside Do With All The Elevators Blocked?'
the Genuine Explosion Witness - 'It Went Boom, The Whole Building'
the Two Asians - 'One Plane On Tower One, Other On Tower Two' - one of whom Gedeon took the time to LAPEL-MICROPHONE-CLIP
the Bemused Middle-Aged Guy - 'This Is Like Something Out Of A Movie, It's Like The Towering Inferno'
AND then
get back to the firehouse in time to film (IN A SCENE LIT FROM BELOW?) the firehouse wall clock saying *9:30*, with Tony watching the TV next to the clock.

Do you think that's possible?

Even taking a chance and assuming you're correct in saying Gedeon filmed those scenes, yes. 12 minutes to walk (an overestimate of) 1km leaves 15 minutes to film a total of what, 3 minutes total footage?

Do you admit that is possible?

In addition, where's the evidence of murder, Ray Ubinger?

Regnad Kcin

6th July 2006, 11:00 AM

A few minutes with Mapquest and Google Maps shows it's (less than) 650metres. At a walking pace (though he could have hurried :rolleyes: ) of 5kph it would take him 7 minutes 48 seconds. Do you think that's possible?I do. Most north/south blocks in NYC are quite short. At a moderate pace you can stroll one in under 30 seconds. The east/west lengths are considerably longer. Walking time by way of that direction? I can't recall with enough certainty, so I won't hazard an estimate.

But this is all beside the point. Reverse-engineering can be done with most any event to "prove" other events led up to it. Doesn't mean there is direct cause in the first place. But that doesn't stop conspiracy theorists from their flights of Sherlockian fancy, more's the pity.

Ray Ubinger

13th July 2006, 05:37 PM

So why does Gedeon, after filming the 2nd Hit[,]
walk back to the firehouse and film rookie Tony manning the phone and watching TV?
(if, that is, the Naudets' focus had supposedly changed into being a documentary about a historic incident instead of a documentary about a rookie fireman)

The fire crews from Tony's station were not at the station, they were out on the street.
ALL of them? You're saying the whole firehouse worth of men (and vehicles?) responded to the allegedly no-big-deal, Alleged Odor of Alleged Gas, leaving the firehouse empty at 8:30 except for Gedeon Naudet? I say Joseph Pfeifer and Dennis Tardio are the ONLY members of Tony's firehouse who actually appear in the Odor of Gas (Church-Lispenard) footage.

They [the fire crews from Tony's station], in fact, called in the fire to dispatch, on the way down to the WTC. Why, exactly, would dispatch sound an alarm in a fire house, if they already knew the engines from that firehouse were on route?
Why would the whole firehouse worth of men and vehicles have been at the allegedly no-big-deal, Alleged Odor of Alleged Gas?

Secondly, Tony wasn't there that morning. He came in later - hence why he missed the gas leak.
To the contrary, Tony is shown as one of the guys coming in on the 8:00 a.m. work shift.

Gideon
Gedeon
couldn't get to the WTC because the police sealed the area off.
Sealing off WTC, besides being probably impossible in that short a time, would have prevented tens of thousands of people from escaping. Here you got misdirected by deceptive editing/narration. What we're actually shown at the time in question, shortly post-2nd-Hit, is someone in CIVILIAN clothes shooing Gedeon away from the DEBRIS at CHURCH-MURRAY. I mean the large black man seen in two vids and one still at
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/bigjunk.htm
That sealed-off DEBRIS was SEVERAL BLOCKS from WTC. Then the narration deceptively asserts that 'that was as close as Gedeon would get to the World Trade Center without a fireman.'

In another documentary, by the way, it looks like Gedeon (by facial resemblance and by filming at a known Gedeon time and place) was actually WEARING AN FDNY UNIFORM:
http://tinyurl.com/jjsd2

Their alleged subject, the alleged rookie Tony Benetatos, was not on that [Alleged Odor of Alleged Gas] call, he stayed back at the firehouse.

Negative. Tony wasn't there at all. When Gedeon got back to the fire house Tony told him that when he arrived no one was there.

Baloney! Tony does not say that, to anyone. You're making it up. The closest you'll find is the scene partly excerpted at
http://911foreknowledge.com/tony/tonycalls.htm
wherein the narration says Gedeon was WITH Tony at 8:46 AND that Tony in turn was "STILL at the firehouse."

He [Tony] came in LATE (it was never explained if he was scheduled to come in later or if he just missed his bus or whatever).

Tony is depicted as one of the guys coming in on the 8:00 a.m. shift. He opens or closes some compartment on a fire vehicle.

why did Gedeon say he WALKED from firehouse to WTC at 8:46? He caught rides on the firetrucks for all the previous dispatches that he filmed. Didn't any firemen drive from the 100 Duane Street firehouse (where Gedeon allegedly was at 8:46) to the WTC, at 8:46?

No. Because the firemen were attending a gas leak.

All thirteen of them? But only two managed to show up in the footage? And Jules Naudet thought Gedeon Naudet was with Jules at the alleged odor of alleged gas too? But also we're being told Gedeon SENT Jules there, to get camera practice?

Ray Ubinger

Regnad Kcin

13th July 2006, 08:46 PM

Mr. Ubinger:

Questions are not evidence.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

RK

WildCat

13th July 2006, 09:05 PM

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.

gumboot

13th July 2006, 09:40 PM

ALL of them? You're saying the whole firehouse worth of men (and vehicles?) responded to the allegedly no-big-deal, Alleged Odor of Alleged Gas, leaving the firehouse empty at 8:30 except for Gedeon Naudet?

Yes, I am. In the footage we see two fire trucks (assumably engine 7 and ladder 1), the fire chief's vehicle, and an ambulance at the gas leak. Why do you claim it is no big deal? Gas leaks are never "no-big-deal". Yes, the firemen said it was "just another call" because it was. They are talking in the context of what came after.

I say Joseph Pfeifer and Dennis Tardio are the ONLY members of Tony's firehouse who actually appear in the Odor of Gas (Church-Lispenard) footage.

Indeed. There's two people in the chief's vehicle. So who drove the other two fire engines (one of which we see video of it leaving the station directly ahead of the chief)? There are multiple firemen in that scene. There are single shots with ATLEAST 4 firemen. Where did they come from?

Why would the whole firehouse worth of men and vehicles have been at the allegedly no-big-deal, Alleged Odor of Alleged Gas?

What do you think a "whole firehouse worth of men and vehicles" consists of? They had one fire engine, and one ladder, as well as the chief's vehicle. We see all three of these at the gas leak. It is standard practise in the event of a call out for the entire station to go. Only 13 men are on duty. Subtracting the two in the chief's vehicle, that's 11 men between two engines (say, 6 for the ladder and 5 for the engine?). Again, since when is a gas leak "no-big-deal"?

To the contrary, Tony is shown as one of the guys coming in on the 8:00 a.m. work shift.

He is not. No one is specifically shown (we see arms and a shirt making breakfast, no faces). however what the doco DOES show (later) is the following: (my bolding)

NARRATOR: It turns out Gideon was with Tony
Phone Rings
TONY (on phone): Engine Seven, Ladder One. (Pause) This is firefighter Benatanos...
NARRATOR: But Tony was still at the firehouse
TONY (on phone): Yes (pause) no, I was off-duty
NARRATOR: And now he'd been ordered to stay there.
TONY (on phone): Everybody's been recalled. All available units must come back to the firehouse.
NARRATOR: While Tony tried to keep up with the phones...
TONY (on phone): This is firefighter Benatanos
NARRATOR (cont'd): Gideo took his camera and started walking.

Sealing off WTC, besides being probably impossible in that short a time, would have prevented tens of thousands of people from escaping. Here you got misdirected by deceptive editing/narration. What we're actually shown at the time in question, shortly post-2nd-Hit, is someone in CIVILIAN clothes shooing Gedeon away from the DEBRIS at CHURCH-MURRAY.

You are being dishonest. What we are ACTUALLY shown in that scene is police officers, the black man in civilian clothing (with some form of official ID around his neck that looks like a police badge), and people in blue jackets with "FBI" on the back. IMMEDIATELY after this we see people pushing everyone back and putting up red tape, telling everyone to get back.

This is what I was referring to when I said they "sealed off the whole area". I never said they sealed off "the WTC" and I never suggested they prevented people leaving. You are dishonestly misrepresenting me.

Then the narration deceptively asserts that 'that was as close as Gedeon would get to the World Trade Center without a fireman.'

What is deceptive about this statement?

-Andrew

Ray Ubinger

13th July 2006, 11:12 PM

It's a good thing for the Naudets that S11 came along and made their documentary sellable.

It's a good thing for you that the 9/11 conspiracy bandwagon came along so you could really get vituperous about the government that allegedly stole your votes.

There's nothing alleged about the Durham County Board of Elections' refusal to count my vote. Ask them, at 919-560-0700, they'll admit it, because N.C. General Statute 163-123(f) tells them to throw my vote away, despite that my vote is cast by a legally registered voter (me) and is cast for a constitutionally eligible person (sometimes me, sometimes someone else).

Just how else besides open vote-trashing do you explain that a dozen incumbents in my county alone are on record as having achieved UNANIMOUS victories, like Saddam in 2002?

The goalpost of the finished product changed with the attack. IT was no longer the story of a firefighter, but of the worst terror attack to be recorded in modern times. As such what happens back at the relative safety of the firehouse is of no interest. What happens out on the street is.

So why does Gedeon, after filming the 2nd Hit
http://www.911hoax.com/gNaudetWTC1_9...=46&PageNum=46
http://911foreknowledge.com/n2hit.htm
walk back to the firehouse and film rookie Tony manning the phone
http://911foreknowledge.com/tony/tonycalls.htm
and watching TV
http://911foreknowledge.com/tony/clocks.htm
?

[/QUOTE=orhpia nay]Because that was footage they had. Mixed with audio footage they had. With perhaps worse continuity than they could have had.[/QUOTE]

My question was,
Why was such banal footage so important for Gedeon to obtain in the first place, that he left the site of "the worst terrorist attack to be recorded in modern times?" Had "the goalpost of the finished product changed with the attack?"--changed, from dull rookie story to Witnessing History--or hadn't it? If it had, then why after the 2nd Hit was Gedeon still bothering with getting even more footage of Tony Not Firefighting?

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

He says, at exactly 0:33:09 on the dvd clock, that he slowly walked there then.

"I remember, uh, slowly walking down to the World Trade Center. What really sticks in my mind is passing by people, filming them and filming their astonishment. And the eyes, saying, 'This isn't happening.' "

Ten or fifteen seconds of such footage later, comes his footage of the 2nd Hit.

Ray Ubinger

gumboot

13th July 2006, 11:28 PM

My question was,
Why was such banal footage so important for Gedeon to obtain in the first place, that he left the site of "the worst terrorist attack to be recorded in modern times?"

Ray, this has already been explained to you. He couldn't get any closer to the WTC on his own, because officials taped off the area and sent everyone back (no doubt this is why almost all of the fatalities at the WTC were people INSIDE the buildings - because the area had been evacuated).

He states himself that he didn't know what to do, so he went back to the firehouse.

This is a natural thing to do. After months of filming, it must have felt like a second home. At the firehouse would be other firemen, and maybe some way of communicating with his brother. Once at the firehouse he might be able to find a fireman who can take him to his brother.

Where he was, he was just a guy all alone on the street with a camera.

And bear in mind it is clear that the brothers made no conscious decision to "change the focus of their documentary" at this time. They were simply going with what was happening. Much of the time they were just surviving. They often weren't even looking at what they were filming.

You make it sound like they suddenly went "hey, screw the rookie, this will make a GREAT documentary... let's film this instead". It is very clear that while the events were unfolding they spared very little consideration for their documentary whatsoever.

-Andrew

CptColumbo

13th July 2006, 11:28 PM

So basically you're accusing them of being documentary filmakers?

Getting footage in the midst of chaos is what photo-journalists do. I used to be one in the late 80's-early 90's . I never had to deal with anything of this magnitude, but have been on the scene of accidents.

BTW when I was working the equipment needed was very heavy, so I always ended up walking slowly. They were probably walking slowly so they didn't shake the camera too much. Watch The Blair Witch Project to see what running with a camera does.

Ray Ubinger

14th July 2006, 01:45 PM

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.

The reactions do not even remotely reflect the sudden shock of an explosion in the sky above them.

I stand by my argument against that interpretation. In maybe only half a second of real time (stretched by the Naudets to about 4 seconds in slow motion), at least three pedestrians (out of maybe nine pedestrians visible) simultaneously go from walking along casually, to suddenly whirling their gaze up or around. Gray T-Shirt Guy, Briefcase Guy, and Backpack Person aka Possible Condi Rice lookalike.

They are people walking along, casually gazing up at something that they can't believe they are seeing - the WTC on fire.

Their change of attention is sudden, not casual. All three reacting pedestrians whirl their gazes within a second, maybe half a second, of one another. All three of them do so in mid-stride. And the look on Briefcase Guy's face is one of discernible surprise, though maybe you can't discern it without viewing the actual dvd, on a TV screen.

Also, a snippet of undisputed post-1st-Hit footage from that very same place (to within 10 or 20 feet) shows how much more crowded the street really was after the 1st Hit (nearby buildings emptying in curiosity):
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm
This location4 clip is of a qualitatively different crowd compared to how folks looked at 8:46 in the bravenewworld clip. Location4 shows that people were simply not walking along casually anymore after the 1st Hit. To the contrary, practically everyone is standing still, staring up, dumbstruck. In Gedeon's own words, "What sticks in my mind is ... astonishment ... and the eyes, saying, 'This isn't happening. " Very much like locations1, 2, and 3 (farther up Church St., I think) as well. Very much UNlike the START of the bravenewworld clip.

Ray Ubinger

Edited to change the end of my last sentence, which I initially posted as, "... UNlike the First Moment of a Brave New World." I would define that Moment as the TRANSITION, FROM the casual walking at the start of the bravenewworld clip, TO the sudden reaction to the 1st Hit.

Ray Ubinger

14th July 2006, 04:23 PM

Flipping a shot to avoid a jump cut, or make screen direction is fine - (see the funeral tangent) you are not altering the facts, just making the transition - its not like flipping a shot of plane 2 and its direction of travel so as to represent it as plane 1.

Except it [really] is like that[,] in the case of the Gorumba funeral scene, because if you un-mirror-image the shot, the truck would be driving the wrong way.
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm

My explanation is that the truck really was driving the wrong way, and not because the real funeral had a drunk truck driver, but because they ACCIDENTALLY filmed that truck driving the wrong way at the FAKE version of the funeral. I submit that the shots of "the" funeral that have Tony in them, were not shot at the real funeral.
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/crowd.htm

They might not have been able to get a closeup of Tony at the funeral, so they might have used one from elsewhere.

A closeup of Tony at some OTHER large formation of SALUTING firemen IN DRESS UNIFORM *and* a big passing truck? Is that what you're postulating? Some formal large outdoor firefighter occasion which included Tony and which resembled the Gorumba funeral, yet which the Naudets COMPLETELY DROPPED FROM THE NARRATIVE, using the occasion ONLY for its footage which was able to give a FALSE impression (formation's front row) of how Tony was situated at the Gorumba funeral, IF he really was there?

And instead of simply omitting the one brief snippet with the truck passing Tony (in the opposite-to-funeral-procession direction), they went to the trouble to mirror-image it, so we'd be extra-fooled into thinking the closeups of Tony were really taken at the funeral? You're saying they not only depicted non-funeral footage as being funeral footage, but they also ALTERED it first? A lie on TOP of a lie, plus other documented instances of the Naudets altering their own raw footage (like Tony's TV-watching moment and like the Naudet 2nd Hit)--and all it gets from you is a "big deal," because it's from the revered Naudets? But if I lied even once, you'd be all on my case about it, would you not?

Ray Ubinger

60hzxtl

14th July 2006, 04:31 PM

And instead of simply omitting the one brief snippet with the truck passing Tony (in the opposite-to-funeral-procession direction), they went to the trouble to mirror-image it, so we'd be extra-fooled into thinking the closeups of Tony were really taken at the funeral? You're saying they not only depicted non-funeral footage as being funeral footage, but they also ALTERED it first? A lie on TOP of a lie, plus other documented instances of the Naudets altering their own raw footage (like Tony's TV-watching moment and like the Naudet 2nd Hit)--and all it gets from you is a "big deal," because it's from the revered Naudets? But if I lied even once, you'd be all on my case about it, would you not?

Ray Ubinger

ding-a- ling a- ling- Ray's Here!

Look up in the sky! Its birds, its clouds its a huge hunkin' hypo needle!

ding-a- ling a- ling!

gumboot

14th July 2006, 05:01 PM

I stand by my argument against that interpretation. In maybe only half a second of real time (stretched by the Naudets to about 4 seconds in slow motion), at least three pedestrians (out of maybe nine pedestrians visible) simultaneously go from walking along casually, to suddenly whirling their gaze up or around. Gray T-Shirt Guy, Briefcase Guy, and Backpack Person aka Possible Condi Rice lookalike.

Ray, you're just... wrong. It is at half speed, at absolute slowest. They shot on video. When you make slow motion with video you have to do it in post-production, and the editing software does it by duplicating frames. Even at half speed (showing every single frame twice) the footage has a distinct stutter to it. At 1/8 speed, as you are claiming the software would show every frame EIGHT TIMES. This would feel INCREDIBLY unnatural to anyone watching. The footage we see has a relatively fluid motion to it still, meaning, AT MOST it is half speed (more likely something like 2/3).

We see confirmed footage of the second hit, in a similar situation. The reaction of onlookers to the second hit is MUCH more pronounced than to your claimed first hit.

Look Ray, video interpretation is a difficult art. The only really effective way of learning it is by having shot a LOT of footage yourself and then seen that footage many times. You begin to learn how things look, and what the tell-tale signs are of misleading imagery. Do not be concerned that you are misinterpreting video, you cannot be expected to be effective without experience.

-Andrew

gumboot

14th July 2006, 05:11 PM

And instead of simply omitting the one brief snippet with the truck passing Tony (in the opposite-to-funeral-procession direction), they went to the trouble to mirror-image it, so we'd be extra-fooled into thinking the closeups of Tony were really taken at the funeral?

I think you're completely wrong...

It is the first shot, the crash-zoom during the salute, that is the inserted pick-up shot. If it is mirrored (I'm not convinced) that means everyone is saluting with their left hand instead of their right, which would explain why the guy behind Tony to camera right looks so completely unco.

Also note in the salute shot, the person to camera left of Tony has a white hat on, yet in the other shot everyone around him has a blue hat on.

I would say they missed a shot of Tony during the salute (they were looking further along the line and not ready for it) and so grabbed it later, maybe after the service with whatever other firemen were handy.

I'm unconvinced about Tony's "sore" because the image quality is too poor to detect anything clearly.

-Andrew

Ray Ubinger

20th July 2006, 05:18 PM

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.

Crappy shot,

Great shot, dramatic, historic, unique, world-famous. Only 7/10ths of a mile away. Only mildly out of focus.

barely caught.

That was intentional. Otherwise he would have had to track the object in camera and thus might have missed the crucial impact.

The way they staged it, he only had to pan straight over to the North Tower, which he knew would be impacted. The AT&T bldg in the right foreground keeps the object blocked until the last second or so. This helps disguise that the cameraman's pan aimed onto the TOWER about to be impacted, not onto the flying object.

You, yourself say you can't even identify the plane as a large airliner, Ray Ubinger. You call it a "Cessna-sized blob."

But planes aren't blobby, especially not 767s from only 7/10ths of a mile away. Ergo I can and do identify it -- as a non-plane. What about it looks like a 767 to you?
http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig/flashframe.jpg

Ray Ubinger

Regnad Kcin

20th July 2006, 05:34 PM

I love nuts, don't you?

Cashews, almonds, conspiracy theorists...

Ray Ubinger

20th July 2006, 05:51 PM

"Editing" like showing two different shots of Mr. Backofhead's right arm stabbing toward Father Judge (whose left hand slides down from Chief Pfeifer's right shoulder) when there was supposedly only one camera there?
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm

Ok, so what does this have to do with conspiracy theories about 9/11? Syringes? Gun barrels? Murders captured on film?

You mean what does Father Judge's murder have to do with the S11 plot OTHER than that it happened inside WTC1 on 9/11?? Sheesh. 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. I've looked and looked. There's apparently no actual witness statement to that effect. It just appeared in the news out of nowhere as purported fact.

What does ANY of this have to do with the Naudet brothers being "in" on 9/11? Or ANYTHING at all for that matter?

It was Jules Naudet who stood there and filmed Father Judge getting shrubbed, just like he stood there and filmed the 1st Hit Impact victims getting shrubbed by his bosses' mysterious non-plane murder weapon.

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.

Btw, the "syringe" looks an awful lot like the gas detector used in the footage from the 1st tower-hit.

It's too small for that. The gas detector is as wide as Chief Pfeifer's palm, like a handheld radio. The "syringe" is so narrow that it is able to be held by a man's index finger being curled around it.

"Editing" like making the Gorumba funeral procession NOT reverse direction?
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm

Ok, so what does this have to do with conspiracy theories about 9/11?

It goes toward establishing the alleged FDNY rookie Tony Benetatos as some kind of actor or undercover agent rather than a real fireman. He wasn't really at the Gorumba funeral. The Naudets faked his attendance with creative editing. 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.

Some other reasons to suspect that this man Benetatos (who was allegedly the original focus of their documentary) was actually just a scripted excuse for them to be able to get so much dramatic footage, is:

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

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

3. An elaborate plot device is constructed to get him off camera for most of the big day. (the Retiree ex Machina, Larry "I Needa Cuppa Cawfee" Burns, who gets Tony to disobey a direct order to stay at the firehouse (the first of three such occurrences in the movie) -- plus the Gloveless Exit, wherein Tony sends THE CAMERAMAN (Gedeon) back to fetch "a box of medical gloves," but then Tony DITCHES the cameraman)

4. He can't keep a straight face when he's talking about poor deceased Michael Gorumba.
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonyreaction.htm

5. He can't keep a straight face when telling a tall tale about his time at Ground Zero.
http://911foreknowledge.com/badbleed.htm

6. He gets a SINGING credit at the end.

Think of him as FONY FDNY TONY.

Ray Ubinger

Ray Ubinger

20th July 2006, 06:09 PM

Good ol' Ray! Not only were the Naudet's in on it, they edited it, and released all the details, for all to see, and only Ray is smart enough to see it!

I'm neither the first nor last person to conclude from the Naudet movie that the Naudets were in on the S11 plot.

Your conspiracies equal "I've never seen it, so it has to be a bad thing."

Your world equals "Documentarians lie all the time, it's perfectly normal, just like wounds on people's faces natrually change cheeks."
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm

and "CIA man in white shirt, bad, bad CIA man." (me I think the guy in the white shirt is DARPA or ONI, myself, just based on that wet finger I stuck in the air.)

FYI, I didn't write that page with the white-shirt-CIA comment, our collaborator Jim Scott did. He wrote one or two pages, so did Webfairy, and Les Raphael wrote his essay, and I wrote the rest. FWIW, I agree that Jim's white-shirt speculation is flimsy. Most of the site's writing was pasted together from unpolished emails not originally intended for publication. I acknowledge this as a weakness of the site.

Maybe the safest place for you is public office.

If only the elections would be de-rigged so people could actually vote for me and have it count.

You can do less damage there than spitting on the graves of the FDNY

No one on the Naudet-FDNY team died.

and expressing the boogieman did it theory about people, (the Naudet's included) who have the fortitude to stay the course of their job and profession, when it may cost them their lives, rather than grabbing their magic hat and talking through it from the safety of their political office.

The Naudets have so little fortitude to stay the course of their job and profession that they've done no new projects since S11. Their job was done by early/mid-2003 when they stopped giving interviews to plug their dvd. Now they seem to be in hiding. No new documentaries, no anniversary appearances, not a peep. I wonder what they do for money anymore.
http://www.blogigo.co.uk/socialdemocracynow/200510

Ray Ubinger

CptColumbo

20th July 2006, 06:17 PM

Ray,
Your above questions (post 244) lead me to believe that you have never actually watched the film, as most of them are answered in it. It gives me the impression that you have just read articles about it on certain CT web sites. The answers to the rest of your questions would be obvious if you had an idea of how documentary film-making and television journalism are done. Watch some other documentaries (not on the Internet) and you will see many of the same techniques of camera work and editing used, especially on comercial networks that need ratings and comercial breaks. They have to get the information across, but they also need to grab the viewer and build drama. After watching other docs, then watch 9/11.

Also you are making some pretty strong accussations against the FDNY and it's personel. Perhaps you should take it to the men/women of Engine 7, Ladder 1, if you are so sure of the "facts" as you see them. Let me know how it goes.

ETA post #

CptColumbo

20th July 2006, 06:19 PM

No one on the Naudet-FDNY team died.
Do you expect them to apologize for surviving?

CptColumbo

20th July 2006, 06:23 PM

The Naudets have so little fortitude to stay the course of their job and profession that they've done no new projects since S11. Their job was done by early/mid-2003 when they stopped giving interviews to plug their dvd. Now they seem to be in hiding. No new documentaries, no anniversary appearances, not a peep. I wonder what they do for money anymore.
http://www.blogigo.co.uk/socialdemocracynow/200510

Ray Ubinger
That just increases their credibility in my mind. If I had witnessed, first-hand, what they saw I would probably want to get out of the business and never want to talk about it again.

Ray Ubinger

20th July 2006, 06:30 PM

The only thing you have, are people looking up suddenly and you claim it's happening at 8:46am.

No, I also have the location pegged to within sight of WTC and the timing pegged to well before the 1st Collapse.

Sir, one could see the WTC from most of Manhattan.

Manhattan is mostly covered by opaque buildings much much taller than any pedestrian. And my 8:46 timing claim does not come only from the sudden-looking-up by some people, but also from the lighting cues and from the quality of the crowd (thin crowd, and STARTING with NOBODY looking up, but everyone just casually walking).
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm

Ray Ubinger

CptColumbo

20th July 2006, 06:35 PM

Manhattan is mostly covered by opaque buildings much much taller than any pedestrian. And my 8:46 timing claim does not come only from the sudden-looking-up by some people, but also from the lighting cues and from the quality of the crowd (thin crowd, and STARTING with NOBODY looking up, but everyone just casually walking).
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm

Ray Ubinger
Now I know you've never been to Manhattan, at least not near the battery. Have you ever actually experienced any of the things you are writing about or are you just depending on what other people tell you?