Leslie Raphael's (Public) Conveniences

[orphia nay]

In his article, 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, a form of argument from ignorance.

Many of these conveniences are further examples of the logical fallacy known as non causa pro causa.

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]

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

Quote:

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]

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

[Shrinker]

Originally Posted by XXX

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]

Originally Posted by Shrinker

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]

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

[geni]

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]

Thanks, geni.

Originally Posted by XXX

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.

Originally Posted by Shrinker

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?

Originally Posted by Gravy

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.

Originally Posted by Carnivore

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]

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.

[steve s]

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]

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

[Timothy]

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]

Originally Posted by XXX

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.

Originally Posted by steve s

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.

Originally Posted by CptColumbo

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]

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

[orphia nay]

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]

> 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]

Originally Posted by Ray Ubinger

> 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

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

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

Quote:

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

Can you explain your thought process here?

[Ray Ubinger]

> 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]

Originally Posted by Ray Ubinger

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Ray Ubinger

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]

Originally Posted by Ray Ubinger

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Ray Ubinger

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]

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]

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

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

And the specific location is unknown.

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

Quote:

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).

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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"

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Trying to poison the well?

Quote:

, 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]

Lord, not another one.

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

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Ray Ubinger

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

Originally Posted by Ray Ubinger

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]

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

[The_Fire]

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]

Originally Posted by gumboot

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]

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]

Originally Posted by atari24

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]

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:

Quote:

Yes, it is!

Quote:

No it isn't!

Quote:

Yes, it is!

Quote:

No it isn't!

Quote:

Yes, it is!

Quote:

No it isn't!

Quote:

Yes, it is!

Quote:

No it isn't!

Quote:

Yes, it is!

Quote:

No it isn't!

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