From the author of the Naudet essay [To : Loose Change forum (P.8)]
Thu 26 Apr 07
Let me explain something : the conveniences in my list are not INDIVIDUAL proofs of the proposition. The proposition is COLLECTIVE - CUMULATIVE. You don't take one point - like the time it happened - and say that's my case. If it was, you'd be quite right - I wouldn't HAVE a case. But I wouldn't be saying anything as stupid to begin with. Some of the individual circumstances are stronger on their own than others, but the general proposition is that there are 69 of these things, and THAT'S what proves the case - it's the multiplicity. It's incredibly unlikely that as many as 69 circumstances would happen, all at the same time, in the same place, to the same person - most of them things he had no control over - that made it easier for him to do what he did : and what he did, let's remember, nobody else in New York did - nobody else filmed that plane impact. Maybe I didn't spell that out in the article - because I assumed most folk would get the point - the list was CUMULATIVE. Would it help if I put the word "AND" at the end of every entry ? Or would you still think they were all meant to be taken individually ?
Do conveniences ever happen like that in YOUR life - by the dozen ? In my life, it tends to be the INconveniences that pile up all at the same time - like the inconvenience of finding out folk can't get their heads around the concept of cumulative circumstantial evidence. As for that other proposition, that Orphia Nay seemed to be selling - that circumstances don't matter : is she seriously suggesting that if Naudet had filmed the plane (to paraphrase my article, because I anticipated the argument) standing on his head on a bicycle, juggling three camcorders, she'd still accept it as authentic ? Or maybe she's just another one who thinks the conveniences are all separate, individual proofs. I never claimed they were anything of the kind : talk about missing the point. You take them ALL TOGETHER : it's the COLLECTIVE, CUMULATIVE LIST OF - SERIES OF - STRING OF - connected, simultaneous conveniences that makes the case. Have you got it yet ?
Here's a challenge : check out Picture 20b in Appendix 4 in my new (April 2007) edition, and explain to me why Captain Dennis Tardio of Engine 7 is asking us to believe the Twin Towers were at the end of Church Street that morning, and every other day since they were built. This picture doesn't prove Tardio or the Naudets were complicit in 9/11 - not on its own, as above - but what it does prove is that their film contains examples of fraud and absurdity, and this is one of them. This is definitely Tardio, it's definitely Church St, and we know for a definite fact that he can't see the Twin Towers where he's pointing not because they were destroyed by hijacked jets that day, but because they never WERE where he's pointing.
Picture 17a shows where the towers were from the Canal Street end of West Broadway, away over to the right - West Broadway leads down to the left of the red arrow. Where would they be in a picture taken from the next street to the east of this one, more than 100 yards further LEFT ? Not remotely where Tardio's pointing, that's for sure : I'd be amazed if they even made it into the picture. This is a guy with years of experience as a Manhattan fireman : he knows the Trade Center towers were never at the end of Church St. So why is he doing this ? What does he think he's playing at ? If he wanted to make a serious point, and show us where the towers used to be, all he has to do is walk up to the end of the next block, West Broadway, and show us from there, and it would make sense, and be perfectly valid. Why are we getting this nonsense instead ? Is he too lazy to walk up the street ? Is West Broadway cordoned off or inaccessible ? What's this stupidity doing in an award-winning documentary ? Did nobody notice ? Or do they just think "Who cares" ? Who cares about FACTS ? They were "somewhere down there" : isn't that good enough ? Not for me, it ain't : Tardio isn't saying they were "somewhere down there" - he's saying "the end of this street is where they used to be" - and I want to know why he's LYING saying it. That's the only word for it.
Just like the alleged firemen in Picture 20a are LYING suggesting you could see Trade Center No. Seven by looking west down Duane Street : any of you geniuses got an explanation for this one ? Do you deny this is Duane Street ? Do you deny it was never possible to see WTC 7 by looking west down that street ? Do you deny that's exactly what this picture leads us to believe ? Do you deny that this is totally dishonest and fraudulent ? Tell me why this rubbish is in a supposedly authentic film. Why would ordinary, straight-talking, salt-of-the-earth New York firemen take part in a charade like this, pretending to be able to see something they know they can't ?
My explanation for these things - aside from the idea that these are probably NOT ordinary firemen - is that we are having two fingers stuck up to us. We're being laughed at, by folk who know that most folk are mugs, as PT Barnum used to say : and he's right, about anybody who thinks nothing in my article has the slightest merit, and nothing in the Naudet film is remotely suspect. They wouldn't even notice Tardio was in Church St : if they did, it would never even occur to them to question what he was saying. They believe what they WANT to believe - not what's there in front of them, staring them in the face and laughing at them. That's the "meaning" of these pictures : they were produced by folk who just enjoy proving how stupid the public is, and how easy it is to con them, and get them to believe nonsense - and I don't mean the Naudets - they're just a pair of bit parts. And then some folk turn round and say I'M the con artist, for trying to point out who the REAL conmen are.
Incidentally again, that interjection allegedly from me that includes the word "turkey," I never said. I'm British - I don't use that expression, and never have done. For the record.
Les Raphael
From : the author of the Naudet essay
Thu 26 Apr 07
A mathematical point, for those numerate enough to understand. If I have 30 packs of cards, and I pick one from each at random, what are the chances of all 30 of my selections being of either a red or black suit ? No, not 2 x 30. It's 2 to the power 30, which comes to 1 in 1,073,741,824 - say one in a billion, roughly. By comparison, the odds of throwing six double sixes in a row with two dice is one in two billion (2,176,782,336, to be precise). If there were only 30 conveniences involved in Jules Naudet's film of Flight 11, and each one had only ONE alternative which would have made it impossible or very difficult, that would make what he did equivalent to 20 times the odds of throwing five double sixes in a row, or picking 30 cards that were all either hearts or diamonds from 30 packs of cards. I give at least one alternative for most of my list of 69 conveniences. That's a minimum of 2 to the power 69 : want to work it out ? Use a BIG calculator - one with a lot more than 10 digits.
Here's an example of how probability theory works with just ONE of them - No. 32 in my list of Conveniences. What are the odds of the plane hitting the only side of the North Tower Naudet can see ? He has a 1 in 4 chance of only being able to see the north face. The plane also has a 1 in 4 chance of hitting the north face, either at random or because of the decision of whoever was flying it. The odds are not 1 in 4, however, that the plane hits Naudet's side : there are two separate factors involved, and you have to multiply them. The odds are an absolute minimum of 1 in 16 of both options turning out to be north. But the odds are actually a lot higher than that, because Naudet can only see the top third of the north face - and the plane hits the top third of the north face. Assuming that neither the plane nor Naudet could see the lower third of that face because of the No. 7 building in front of it, and assuming that the 11 other sectors of the exterior of the tower (both towers were divided into three parts, inside and out) were theoretically accessible to both Naudet and the plane, what are the odds of the plane hitting the only sector Naudet could see, or vice-versa ? Naudet might have been able to see N1 and N2 (the top two sectors of the north face), or only N1, or E1E2E3 or E1E2 or only E1, or S1S2S3 or S1S2 or only S1, or W1W2W3 or W1W2 or only W1; the plane could have hit N1, N2, E1, E2, E3, S1, S2, S3, W1, W2 or W3. Eleven options in each : the odds, put in these terms, are 1 in 121. You could increase the figure further by calculating the odds of the plane conveniently hitting almost the exact midpoint of that top third sector, or by taking into consideration that Naudet might have had a corner view, and been able to see two faces, but 1 in 121 is enough to demonstrate the point. And that is just ONE of my 69 conveniences. You can double it by considering that Naudet ALSO was facing towards the plane, when he could quite easily have been standing with his back to it - to minimise the options ; double it again factoring in that he was ALSO on the east side of the street, when the towers weren't visible from the west side - again, minimising the options ; already we're up to almost 1 in 500. One relative improbability multiplied by the next one to make it even more improbable, multiplied by the next one, multiplied by the next one, and so on, and so on - like throwing double six after double six after double six. Do you get the picture ? If you don't understand how the process works, don't just abuse someone who does.
Of course, not all Naudet's circumstances were totally random : he did have some control over some of them, but not much, and even less when the plane appeared, and that assumed control over events. Or, at least, that's YOUR version - that it was mostly just random. The guy who suggested there was some analogy with DECIDING to get up at 8.30 in the morning - hmmm, suspicious - why not 8.45 ? - has to explain to me how Naudet DECIDED Duane St was going to get an emergency call at 8.30, for a gas leak at a crossroads with a perfect view of the Twin Towers - if you stood on the right side of the road - which he did. Did he DECIDE all those as well ? Did he DECIDE he was going to be facing the plane's closest approach to him - before he knew there was going to BE a plane ? Did he DECIDE he was only going to have a proper view of the one-twelfth of the North Tower the plane hit ? Did he DECIDE there wasn't going to be any traffic - or enormous helmeted firemen - blocking his view of the tower ? Your case is that NONE of these things were decided - they were all just luck. What does that have to do with DECIDING to get up at a certain time ? None of you - and nobody anywhere else - has ever offered one serious argument against my proposition that the gigantic series of pieces of individual "luck," cumulatively combined - you don't take them separately, you don't even add them, you multiply them - that produced the Naudet film of this plane's last two seconds had nothing to do with luck, because it's just so astronomically improbable that prearrangement is several million times more credible. I want to hear arguments against, if there are any. If there aren't, I won't ask for apologies - just join the effort to get the truth out of the Naudets and the folk around them. If you're meant to be sceptics, start directing some of your scepticism at the lies pouring out of the White House for the last five years - and the nonsense in the Naudet film.
Les Raphael
