Leslie Raphael's (Public) Conveniences

[Lisa Simpson]

Uh, Gravy? Take a couple deep breaths, okay?

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Ray Ubinger]

Regnad Kcin writes:

> [A]ny suggestion (by you, Leslie Rapael, or others) that there was something extraordinarily suspicious about filmmakers capturing the first hit on the north tower is rather silly.

That's not a fair statement of the thesis of Les's article. Les is saying Jules Naudet wasn't just in the right place at the right time, he was in the perfect place at the perfect time, in the perfect way.

What would be a hypothetical example of something you would agree is circumstantial evidence in support of such a conclusion, if not the sorts of conditions Les lays out has having enabled the shot? Where would have been a better place to film it from, for example?

And if it's so unsuspicious, how come it's also so perfect and unique?


> There exists these days no small number of personal hand-held video cameras, cell-phone cameras, and digital still cameras.

You raise what would be valid points against a conclusion that no one should have been able to film the first hit at all, but that's a straw man. Les's line of reasoning is about how perfect and unique Jules' shot was, not just that he got it at all.

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


"Pavel Hlava" also appears to have been on the Naudet-FDNY propaganda team, by the way:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pavel


Ray Ubinger

 

[Ray Ubinger]

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

> Prove that the streeet was closed at 8:46.

You won't let me, creep. I keep showing you the footage of a street that you yourself insisted was blocked. You keep not denying that that is the footage you were referring to when you said it was footage of an obviously blocked street. And indeed the blocking is obvious, by the lack of vehicle traffic and by the presence of rubble and trash cans in the street. And then I keep referring you to my argument that that street is Church at Murray as shot at 8:46. But you keep refusing to say what flaw if any you find in my argument that the blocked-street footage is footage of Church-Murray at 8:46.


> If you can't do that, your theory fails.

No, it is incidental, Church-Murray did not absolutely HAVE to be blocked, though the blocking did make Gedeon's job (filming pedestrian reaction at instant of 1st Hit) easier.

However, I do absolutely concede that if you can show Church St. just south of Murray St. was NOT blocked at 8:46, that would totally defeat my theory, because my theory is absolutely committed to that clip being of Church-Murray at 8:46, and that clip obviously is of a blocked street.


Ray Ubinger

 

[gumboot]

It was of central interest to the story: their subject Tony would finally be getting a fire to go to.

Someone didn't watch the documentary very closely...

According to the doco the first alarm was a 3-alarm fire, according to the New York Times it was a 5-alarm.

The fire crews from Tony's station were not at the station, they were out on the street. They, in fact, called in the fire to dispatch, on the way down to the WTC.

Why, exactly, would dispatch sound an alarm in a fire house, if they already knew the engines from that firehouse were on route?

Secondly, Tony wasn't there that morning. He came in later - hence why he missed the gas leak.

Did you even watch the documentary before inventing your conspiracy?

So why does Gedeon, after filming the 2nd Hit
walk back to the firehouse and film rookie Tony manning the phone and watching TV?

You really didn't watch it very hard did you? Gideon couldn't get to the WTC because the police sealed the area off. To quote "I was not going to get any closer to the World Trade Centre". He didn't know what to do. Stand on the street filming the top of a burning building? No doubt he felt very alone and scared, so he headed for safety - the firehouse.

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

The firemen from their station were at the gas leak. Got it? They weren't at the station.

Their alleged subject, the alleged rookie Tony Benetatos, was not on that call, he stayed back at the firehouse.

Negative. Tony wasn't there at all. When Gedeon got back to the fire house Tony told him that when he arrived no one was there. He came in LATE (it was never explained if he was scheduled to come in later or if he just missed his bus or whatever).

But the zillion-alarm call at 8:46 didn't qualify? And then why did Gedeon say he WALKED from firehouse to WTC at 8:46? He caught rides on the firetrucks for all the previous dispatches that he filmed. Didn't any firemen drive from the 100 Duane Street firehouse (where Gedeon allegedly was at 8:46) to the WTC, at 8:46?

No. Because the firemen were attending a gas leak. Or did you forget that detail? They were the first ones at the WTC because they SAW the plane hit, and THEY notified dispatch, and THEY went straight to the WTC. The 3-alarm call came AFTER all this. So why would dispatch send an alarm to a fire house that was already on its way?

The clip doesn't go away just because THEY don't say who filmed it.

Their documentary used a lot of footage from a lot of different sources. Not all of it was theirs - they were shooting on two little handycams using camera sound. There was at least some footage with a much larger camera and a separate soundman recording to DAT (as identified by their shadows).

-Andrew

 

[Gravy]

[pmod=Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]Please don't use size 7 type.[/pmod]
Aww, nothing less will do for responding to the super-creepiest of them all.

 

[gumboot]

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

I'm sorry, but it doesn't. You're just... incorrect. I've watched the documentary. These shots are not showing what you think they are showing. The reactions do not even remotely reflect the sudden shock of an explosion in the sky above them. They are people walking along, casually gazing up at something that they can't believe they are seeing - the WTC on fire.

It is exactly as most of us suspected - post-hit and pre-collapse. Which fits in perfectly with the two filmmakers and their claimed timeline. Gedeon has walked down, caught the second hit (barely), on video, recorded for a while, attempted to get closer, been turned away by the police, and is walking back to the fire station.

-Andrew

 

[Gravy]

That's not a fair statement of the thesis of Les's article. Les is saying Jules Naudet wasn't just in the right place at the right time, he was in the perfect place at the perfect time, in the perfect way.

Crappy shot, barely caught. You, yourself say you can't even identify the plane as a large airliner, Ray Ubinger. You call it a "Cessna-sized blob."

Is there any end to your intellectual cowardice?

Please don't answer. Just take your sick accusations and go away.

 

[gumboot]

That's not a fair statement of the thesis of Les's article. Les is saying Jules Naudet wasn't just in the right place at the right time, he was in the perfect place at the perfect time, in the perfect way.

Which is absolute nonsense. There are dozens of far superior accidental shots of the 2nd hit, once everyone was looking at the WTC.

The Naudet footage of the first hit is not a great shot at all. Had they known in advance, and had they intended to get a "perfect" shot of the first hit, there were dozens upon dozens of far superior vantage points.

Les' "69 conveniences" are laughable. Virtually all of them are utterly identical. It is a work of complete nonsense. I fail to comprehend how anyone can swallow such bile.

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

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

If they had them, that would destroy the heavily scripted Separation Anxiety subplot, wherein each brother thinks the other dead, only to be happy-Hollywood-ly reunited.

And it's comments like that which make me agree firmly with Gravy's assessment of you...

-Andrew

 

[Ray Ubinger]

Ray Ubinger discovers editing and mistakes it for conspiracy.

"Editing" like making the Gorumba funeral procession NOT reverse direction?
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm

"Editing" like showing two different shots of Mr. Backofhead's right arm stabbing toward Father Judge (whose left hand slides down from Chief Pfeifer's right shoulder) when there was supposedly only one camera there?
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm

"Editing" like depicting Pfeifer as fully-suited-up, and as missing the carrying of Judge's body through the street, but then showing a photograph of Pfeifer PRESENT for that corpse-carry through the street, and wearing different clothes? (white short-sleeved garrison uniform, not full firefighter gear)
http://www.saintmychal.com/photos.htm
big photo about 1/3 down page
Pfeifer at far left


Ray Ubinger

 

[Orphia Nay]

It's a good thing for the Naudets that S11 came along and made their documentary sellable.

It's a good thing for you that the 9/11 conspiracy bandwagon came along so you could really get vituperous about the government that allegedly stole your votes.

> The goalpost of the finished product changed with the attack. IT was no longer the story of a firefighter, but of the worst terror attack to be recorded in modern times. As such what happens back at the relative safety of the firehouse is of no interest. What happens out on the street is.

So why does Gedeon, after filming the 2nd Hit
http://www.911hoax.com/gNaudetWTC1_9.asp?intPage=46&PageNum=46
http://911foreknowledge.com/n2hit.htm
walk back to the firehouse and film rookie Tony manning the phone
http://911foreknowledge.com/tony/tonycalls.htm
and watching TV
http://911foreknowledge.com/tony/clocks.htm
?

Because that was footage they had. Mixed with audio footage they had. With perhaps worse continuity than they could have had. Big deal. It's not like they committed a crime, say, murder.

> Finally there are the possibility that Gedeon were there to coordinate schedules like when someone had the time to give an interview, when he, or his brother, were to ride with the ladders etc.

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

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

 

[Orphia Nay]

60hzxtl writes:

> Flipping a shot to avoid a jump cut, or make screen direction is fine - (see the funeral tangent) you are not altering the facts, just making the transition - its not like flipping a shot of plane 2 and its direction of travel so as to represent it as plane 1.

Except it is like that in the case of the Gorumba funeral scene, because if you un-mirror-image the shot, the truck would be driving the wrong way.
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm

My explanation is that the truck really was driving the wrong way, and not because the real funeral had a drunk truck driver, but because they ACCIDENTALLY filmed that truck driving the wrong way at the FAKE version of the funeral. I submit that the shots of "the" funeral that have Tony in them, were not shot at the real funeral.
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/crowd.htm


Ray Ubinger

They might not have been able to get a closeup of Tony at the funeral, so they might have used one from elsewhere. Big whoop.

Where's the evidence of payments/correspondence/interactions from/with secret government departments? Where's the government 9/11 coverup to start with?

 

[chran]

"Editing" like making the Gorumba funeral procession NOT reverse direction?
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm

Ok, so what does this have to do with conspiracy theories about 9/11?

"Editing" like showing two different shots of Mr. Backofhead's right arm stabbing toward Father Judge (whose left hand slides down from Chief Pfeifer's right shoulder) when there was supposedly only one camera there?
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm

Syringes? Gun barrels? Murders captured on film?

What does ANY of this have to do with the Naudet brothers being "in" on 9/11? Or ANYTHING at all for that matter?

Btw, the "syringe" looks an awful lot like the gas detector used in the footage from the 1st tower-hit.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Yes, I agree, chran. What does the Naudets' editing have to do with 19 jihadists?

I forgot to say, thanks, Andrew, and right back at you.

I should be back to reply to more of Ray's posts tomorrow.

 

[60hzxtl]

Good ol' Ray! Not only were the Naudet's in on it, they edited it, and released all the details, for all to see, and only Ray is smart enough to see it!

That hole in your hat that you talk through is getting bigger and bigger.

As for film makers, I suggest you try the films of Fred Wiseman - he turns the camera on, and lets it run. (and run, and run, and run. . . ) We call it raw film or raw video. Unedited film becomes unwatchable to the lay man; the difference between a transcript of a conference, and a report of a conference.

Ray is just having fun with himself - you choose the descriptive term for it - going on and on about things he does not understand. Your conspiracies equal "I've never seen it, so it has to be a bad thing." and "CIA man in white shirt, bad, bad CIA man." (me I think the guy in the white shirt is DARPA or ONI, myself, just based on that wet finger I stuck in the air.)

Maybe the safest place for you is public office. You can do less damage there than spitting on the graves of the FDNY, and expressing the boogieman did it theory about people, (the Naudet's included) who have the fortitude to stay the course of their job and profession, when it may cost them their lives, rather than grabbing their magic hat and talking through it from the safety of their political office.

The more I think about it, the more you DO belong at the public trough.

You don't need to know much about anything to be a politican. You are very qualified.

 

[gumboot]

Ok, so what does this have to do with conspiracy theories about 9/11?
Syringes? Gun barrels? Murders captured on film?

What does ANY of this have to do with the Naudet brothers being "in" on 9/11? Or ANYTHING at all for that matter?

Btw, the "syringe" looks an awful lot like the gas detector used in the footage from the 1st tower-hit.

Oh by the way...

The "syringe" is a pen and the Chief is using another fireman's back to write on (you can see him lifting up a bit of paper as well)

The "gun barrel" is a 2-way radio (walkie-talkie). I should know - I use one on every single film job. The RTs (that's what we call them here) the firemen are seen using in the lobby are identical to the ones we use here in the film industry.

-Andrew

 

[chran]

All right, thanks for clearing that up, Andrew!

 

[Regnad Kcin]

chran writes:

> The only thing you have, are people looking up suddenly and you claim it's happening at 8:46am.

No, I also have the location pegged to within sight of WTC and the timing pegged to well before the 1st Collapse...

Sir, one could see the WTC from most of Manhattan.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Regnad Kcin writes:

> [A]ny suggestion (by you, Leslie Rapael, or others) that there was something extraordinarily suspicious about filmmakers capturing the first hit on the north tower is rather silly.

That's not a fair statement of the thesis of Les's article. Les is saying Jules Naudet wasn't just in the right place at the right time, he was in the perfect place at the perfect time, in the perfect way.

Crappy shot, barely caught. You, yourself say you can't even identify the plane as a large airliner, Ray Ubinger. You call it a "Cessna-sized blob."

I second Gravy.

Moreover, your sinister-sounding "perfect place" ignores my earlier point: much of the upper portions of the Twin Towers were visible from large areas of Manhattan Island (and other points, but we're concerning ourselves with the film makers' location on 9/11).

What would be a hypothetical example of something you would agree is circumstantial evidence in support of such a conclusion, if not the sorts of conditions Les lays out has having enabled the shot? Where would have been a better place to film it from, for example?

Surely you can't be serious.

And if it's so unsuspicious, how come it's also so perfect and unique?

Except it isn't. It's momentary, not fully in focus, and distant.

Oh, and something can't be really unique, very unique, or "so...unique." The word unique means "one of a kind," not some form of extra-special.

> There exists these days no small number of personal hand-held video cameras, cell-phone cameras, and digital still cameras.

You raise what would be valid points against a conclusion that no one should have been able to film the first hit at all, but that's a straw man.

Humor me.

Les's line of reasoning is about how perfect and unique Jules' shot was, not just that he got it at all.

Except...the "line of reasoning" is weak to non-existent. People film random occurences every day, especially in the big city. And a large jet aircraft flying at low altitude, at high throttle, over NYC doesn't happen all the time.

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

It's reasonable to think perhaps: 1) their cell coverage was not international, 2) one or both of them (if they did each carry a phone) was left behind at their hotel room, 3) they did carry them (are you saying they say they didn't?), but couldn't get service after the towers were hit.

Be that as it may, one can raise suspicions all day long. Questions aren't proof.

"Pavel Hlava" also appears to have been on the Naudet-FDNY propaganda team, by the way:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pavel

I'm not in the habit of clicking on links unless the poster first summarizes the relevant points.

 

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Ray Ubinger :

Where would have been a better place to film it from, for example?

Surely you can't be serious.

Oh, that is hilarious! Maybe Ray's best so far.

 

[60hzxtl]

Ray Ubinger for Senate!

Ray Ubinger does not know what he's talking about, but that doesn't stop him!

Ray Ubinger would throw his hat in the ring, but right now he's busy talking through it!

Ray Ubinger - a politican who knows EVERYTHING!

Ray Ubinger will analyze it to death, even if he has no experience at it.

What more could you ask from a politican?