• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Leslie Raphael's (Public) Conveniences

Re-enactment in a documentary would be deceptive, but this is even worse

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
 
Didn't Gravy himself conclude the shot in question was taken on a blocked street?

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
 
Ray Ubinger said:
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
Click to expand...

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, 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
 
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
 
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
 
Ray Ubinger said:
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
Click to expand...

No, but you endorse a theory that friends of my family were on a "blob" that hit the north tower.
 
>> 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_163.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.”
 
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
 
>> 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.
 
Ray Ubinger said:
>> 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.
Click to expand...
We asked for a source for your claim that the Board of Elections openly admits to falsifying the talies on a routine basis. Provide it or shut up.
 
Ray Ubinger said:
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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

Are you a professional creep, or is this a part-time gig?
 
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.
Click to expand...

(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.
 
Ray Ubinger said:
Re-enactments that are put into a DOCUMENTARY without being CALLED re-enactments are called LIES.
Click to expand...


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
 
Very nicely posted, ktesibios.

September 2001 was a trying time for Ray.

Lucky he's got his acting career to fall back on.

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.
 
Unanimous vote tallies weren't okay under Saddam but they're okay in America?

> [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
 
Ray Ubinger said:
> [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
Click to expand...

So I think we can conclude that there is no subject on earth that you can not talk through your hat about.

Cattle prods? Big ol' hypo needle?

Try Halligan tool.
 
Nailing the timing of the bravenewworld clip

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom