Leslie Raphael's (Public) Conveniences

[Orphia Nay]

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

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

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

 

[Orphia Nay]

Forgot to add, in Gravy's pic, the corner of Church & Murray is not in sunlight, as it is in the bravenewworld clip. Any ideas on how to check what it would look like about an hour earlier?

 

[gumboot]

Any ideas on how to check what it would look like about an hour earlier?

I would say an hour earlier the streets are only going to have less sun on them. With those taller buildings east of Church Street I'd be very surprised to see any sun on int. Church and Murray at an earlier time in the morning (it may sneak down Park Place, but I doubt it).

-Andrew

 

[Orphia Nay]

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

 

[Gravy]

Howdy, sleuthers.
Orphia, Murray St. is correctly marked on my photo. The map is deceptive because Murray takes a bend to the right just off the top of the map. Murray is 1 block north of Park. At the corner of Broadway and Park is the magnificent Woolworth building, one of the world's great skyscrapers, and the tallest building in the world from 1913-29. (Now condos.)

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

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

Church St. Looking North from Murray to Warren

Church St. Looking south to Murray (near corner)

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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

 

[Orphia Nay]

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

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

That would be great!
Would it be too much to ask if you could take several pics (of the sunlight/shadows on the building on the southwest corner of Church and Murray (next to the Emigrant Savings Bank)) over the course of an hour, starting from 9am?

Or maybe over half an hour - one at 9:15, one at 9:30 and one at 9:45?

But I don't want you to get any hassle from jackbooted thugs.

 

[gumboot]

Hi everyone,

Managed to track down the documentary and watched it. Was pretty heavy stuff...

After watching it I am completely and utterly convinced (in my expert opinion ) that this footage is 100% genuine and there was no foreknowledge on the part of the filmmakers.

Everything I saw was in keeping with an inexperienced pair of filmmakers suddenly thrown into something unexpected and alien, randomly grabbing footage, and then in the editing room, trying to wrestle that footage into a story that did the events justice.

-Andrew

P.S. I think the USA showed great restraint in only invading *one* country.

 

[les raphael]

From : lesraphael@hotmail.com Tu 27 June 06
Right - one post, and one only, before I get back to doing something worthwhile with my time. Orphia Nay's "critique" of my convenience list is not only complete and utter nonsense, it's pretentious complete and utter nonsense. I'm not even going to bother going over it point by point, except that my reply to the question "How many ways are there of saying 'He filmed the impact' ?" is "How many ways are there of saying 'What kind of brainless question is that ?'" There are a million ways, depending on the circumstances, like how ?, when ?, where ?, etc ; I list 69, which all happen to be convenient. The whole point of the essay and the list is to establish that the circumstances of this particular film are suspicious : "he filmed the impact" is a denial of every single circumstance - it could be repeated 69 times. It's also a denial of your own argument - that the circumstances are accidental : you're saying the circumstances are totally irrelevant. I don't know whether this is stupidity so total it's frightening, or just wilful dishonesty. Secondly, there are NO contradictions in the conveniences, and there are NO duplicates. Thirdly, the part of the tower visible from Naudet's location was ONE TWELFTH - the top third of the north face. Different figures elsewhere are because they are in a different context. Fourthly, here's a little example of how something can be unique and not unique at the same time : the letter A - as in "the cat sat on the mat" - is unique in being the only A in the alphabet, but not unique in not being the only letter. The Naudet film is unique in showing the impact, but not unique in not being the only film of the plane. Is that clear enough for you, or are you completely beyond hope ? I'M supposed to be the confused one ? - yet first you're saying you want my essay banned from the net, then you're
effectively advertising it. Maybe I should be flattered by the attention (I'm not), or grateful for the free plug - if your idiotic rantings have folk checking out the original.
Then we have Gravy, who blithely announces he doesn't have the Naudet film and hasn't seen it - and he probably doesn't even understand why that absolves me of any responsibility to pay any attention to his opinions on my essay - which is an investigation of the film. If he hasn't seen it, he doesn't know what he's talking about - period. This is the kind of nonsense I got from some clown who insisted there were at least a dozen firemen at Church and Lispenard, because the film's commentary said so : not on screen, there aren't, but then if HE watched the bloody film, he'd probably see what he wanted, not what was there. And that's the problem with all of you - you all start from the prejudice that you know what the truth is, and the idea that the poor little innocent Naudets were complicit in 9/11 is so obviously idiotic it hardly needs to be said - and anything contradicting that prejudice has to be disposed of. I had NO preconceptions about 9/11 when it happened : it took me a week to work out who did it, using logical thought processes, mostly to do with the cui bono question. I had no preconceptions about the Naudet film, until a year later - as I've already explained - when I heard the word "unique" used about it, for the first time, which started me thinking about it. Let me get this said - and again, it's in the essay, for anybody interested in actually reading it : you lot have ONE conviction, four years and nine months later, after international investigations costing billions - of a guy who pleaded guilty, thereby avoiding a trial. The Bush version of what happened on 9/11 has NEVER - NOT ONCE - to date been successfully put to a trial jury, to establish it as a legal fact. The Kean Report has no legal status : "Our aim has not been to assign individual blame" - that's what courts of law do - or don't, in the case of 9/11. With a case as insubstantial - in some ways non-existent - as that, I would think twice before shooting my mouth off claiming to know for a fact who was behind 9/11. Until a jury finds them guilty, you know as much, or as little, as the rest of us, and a touch of humility would be welcome.
Fat chance, from the likes of Regnad Kcin : are you as backward as your name suggests ? I use my real one, myself, and my real e-mail address (lesraphael@hotmail.com), and postal address. I'd respectfully suggest Nick Danger-backwards go back to primary school and learn some manners, like not demanding to know what folk do for a living, which is none of your bloody business - I'm the safety officer in a nuclear plant - d'oh ! - what do YOU care ? Or not asking folk if they've ever actually BEEN in New York - as if that's of any relevance, unlike not actually having SEEN the Naudet film. New York is the most filmed, photographed, written about, talked about city in the world : you don't have to go there to know what it's like, and here's a little scoop for you - I'VE never been there. So what ? You've been invited to point out a single factual inaccuracy in my essay, about New York or anything else, and you've failed to provide one example - like you've failed to mention Northwoods, because it's a conspiracy FACT, not a theory, and you can't deal with facts that don't support your prejudices ; like you've failed to provide one quote predicting the collapse of No. 7 that isn't qualified by past-tense verbs - which is a little demonstration of the fact that you know nothing about basic research methods - all you ever do is parrot other people's research - and other people's nonsense. You haven't contributed a single original idea to our imperfect understanding of what happened on 9/11. If the predictions were public knowledge, and on record, BEFORE it happened, nobody would be making anything of Larry Silverstein's comment about "pulling" it - there'd be no mystery about it. Folk believe these things because there are holes in the story - because they have perfectly rational, logical REASONS. The Kean Report doesn't even consider the collapse of a 47-storey building worthy of explanation, yet John Lehman has the effrontery to claim the report answered all the questions : it did nothing of the kind. Read David Griffin's book if you want more examples - but you don't, because of pigheaded arrogance and dishonesty, like Nay's asides about UFOs, teleportation, etc, none of which make one appearance in my essay. I'm so sorry not to conform to your idea of what a "CT" sounds like. But I'm being sarcastic. And, at 54, I've probably got a lot more experience of it than any of you lot : are any of you out of your teens ? If you're voters, that would help explain why we have Bush in the White House and Blair in Downing Street, you pathetic boneheads. I never said I was against abuse, by the way - no hypocrisy - wrong yet again, folks - with your puerile smartaleck comments masquerading as wit. I'm only against it when there's nothing backing it up, like logical arguments - like these ones. And that, as they say, is that : carry on up your khybers. (Note for US readers : Cockney rhyming slang - Khyber Pass = arse/ass)

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ah! The goggles... they do nothing!

 

[gumboot]

From : lesraphael@hotmail.com
Right - one post, and one only, before I get back to doing something worthwhile with my time.

Um...

A question for members of the discussion who are probably more familiar with les raphael than me...

Are they, in your estimate, insane?

I'd just like to know... because...

-Andrew

 

[Starrman]

When the crane known as 'Big Blue' collapsed (killing 3 iron workers) during the construction of the Milwaukee Brewer's new stadium, the event was captured by Japanese tourists driving down the highway next to the construction site. What are the odds that:

1) Japanese toursists would be in Milwaukee
2) They would be filming stuff while riding in the car
3) They would be going by at exactly the right moment to capture that footage

You could dig into this and find 100 reasons why they shouldn't have been able to shoot that video. But they did - does this mean they were in on it?

http://www2.jsonline.com/news/metro/jul99/timside15071599.asp

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Right - one post, and one only, before I get back to doing something worthwhile with my time...

So, pontification but no discussion, eh? Figures.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...ONE conviction, four years and nine months later, after international investigations costing billions - of a guy who pleaded guilty, thereby avoiding a trial.

Can you provide a cite for your claim that the Moussaoui investigation cost "billions?" Thanks.

The Bush version of what happened on 9/11 has NEVER - NOT ONCE - to date been successfully put to a trial jury, to establish it as a legal fact.

I note your attempt to poison the well with your creation of the title "The Bush version." In any event, are you aware of how criminal trials-by-jury are initiated as well as conducted?

The Kean Report has no legal status : "Our aim has not been to assign individual blame" - that's what courts of law do - or don't, in the case of 9/11. With a case as insubstantial - in some ways non-existent - as that, I would think twice before shooting my mouth off claiming to know for a fact who was behind 9/11.

Oh, the irony.

Until a jury finds them guilty, you know as much, or as little, as the rest of us, and a touch of humility would be welcome.

Another mistake. And more irony.

Fat chance, from the likes of Regnad Kcin : are you as backward as your name suggests ?

I can't tell you how funny that is. Really, I can't.

I use my real one, myself, and my real e-mail address (lesraphael@hotmail.com), and postal address.

Bravo.

I'd respectfully suggest Nick Danger-backwards go back to primary school and learn some manners, like not demanding to know what folk do for a living, which is none of your bloody business - I'm the safety officer in a nuclear plant - d'oh ! - what do YOU care ?

That's your "respectfully?"

Not incidentally, nowhere did I "demand" to know; I simply asked. The information might be pertinent to a discussion of your analytical efforts with regard to the Naudet film. See?

Oh, and for someone who "respectfully" suggests I go back to school, perhaps you yourself would like to join me there for remedial studies in grammar, punctuation, and composition.

Or not asking folk if they've ever actually BEEN in New York - as if that's of any relevance...

Of course it's relevant, as I detailed in post #124

...unlike not actually having SEEN the Naudet film. New York is the most filmed, photographed, written about, talked about city in the world : you don't have to go there to know what it's like, and here's a little scoop for you - I'VE never been there. So what ?

It's quite pertinent to many of your points. Its popularity as evidenced by being "filmed, photographed, written about, [and] talked about" whether a lot or a little has little bearing on the matter.

You've been invited to point out a single factual inaccuracy in my essay...

I have? Can you provide a cite as I think I missed that.

...about New York or anything else, and you've failed to provide one example - like you've failed to mention Northwoods, because it's a conspiracy FACT, not a theory...

Northwoods has been covered ad nauseum. Nothing conspiratorial about it.

Say, did you know that Richard Nixon was in Dallas, TX on November 22, 1963? That's right, the former presidential candidate and Republican opponent of John F. Kennedy was in the city on that fateful day to give a speech to a Pepsi Co. convention. Or so he claimed...

...and you can't deal with facts that don't support your prejudices...

Oh, the irony, pt. 3.

like you've failed to provide one quote predicting the collapse of No. 7 that isn't qualified by past-tense verbs - which is a little demonstration of the fact that you know nothing about basic research methods...

And here's an example of why I asked about your career. Please detail how you've come to your advanced degree of competency in "research methods."

And by the way, I would be reluctant to state as "fact" that others know nothing about a particular field or methodology if it was actually nothing more than a WAG. But that's just me, I suppose.

...all you ever do is parrot other people's research - and other people's nonsense.

Whoops! Then he dives right back in.

Really? That's "all" I "ever do?" I'm so ashamed.

You haven't contributed a single original idea to our imperfect understanding of what happened on 9/11.

If you say so.

If the predictions were public knowledge, and on record, BEFORE it happened, nobody would be making anything of Larry Silverstein's comment about "pulling" it - there'd be no mystery about it.

There's no mystery about it now. Except perhaps in the minds of Tom Clancy wannabees who preach to others about their deficiency in "basic research methods."

Folk believe these things because there are holes in the story - because they have perfectly rational, logical REASONS.

There will be "holes" in any story. That doesn't mean you can reverse-engineer pieces to fit.

<snip>

If you're voters, that would help explain why we have Bush in the White House and Blair in Downing Street, you pathetic boneheads.

Now I'm a Bush-voter? Well, you learn something new every day.

I never said I was against abuse, by the way - no hypocrisy - wrong yet again, folks - with your puerile smartaleck comments masquerading as wit.

See here, I've not made one comment about the dental curiosities of our British friends, and I'm not about to start!

I'm only against it when there's nothing backing it up, like logical arguments - like these ones...

Well, you finally managed to get something correct.

 

[CptColumbo]

Fat chance, from the likes of Regnad Kcin : are you as backward as your name suggests?

I never noticed that before. Cool.

 

[Gravy]

From : lesraphael@hotmail.com Tu 27 June 06
Right - one post, and one only, before I get back to doing something worthwhile with my time.

Yes, you seem like someone who spends time doing worthwhile things.

Well, at least we've got the despicable creeps limited to one thread.

 

[Orphia Nay]

From : lesraphael@hotmail.com Tu 27 June 06
Right - one post, and one only, before I get back to doing something worthwhile with my time. Orphia Nay's "critique" of my convenience list is not only complete and utter nonsense, it's pretentious complete and utter nonsense. I'm not even going to bother going over it point by point, except that my reply to the question "How many ways are there of saying 'He filmed the impact' ?" is "How many ways are there of saying 'What kind of brainless question is that ?'" There are a million ways, depending on the circumstances, like how ?, when ?, where ?, etc ; I list 69, which all happen to be convenient.

Evasion and ad hominems noted.

I and others have listed more 'conveniences' that you haven't listed. You just don't understand that you haven't garnered any circumstantial evidence that relates to the 'cover-up' you allege. Or any type of evidence, for that matter.

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

The whole point of the essay and the list is to establish that the circumstances of this particular film are suspicious : "he filmed the impact" is a denial of every single circumstance - it could be repeated 69 times. It's also a denial of your own argument - that the circumstances are accidental : you're saying the circumstances are totally irrelevant.

Your argument itself is totally irrelevant to your unsupported allegations. The circumstances only prove that Jules Naudet was able to film the impact. You have no proof that relates to the Naudets being part of a government cover-up. None. You have no evidence of correspondence to the Naudets from government departments detailing instructions telling them to be ready to film the towers at the stated time and/or place. You don't even have evidence of any correspondence whatsoever from government departments. You have no evidence of payments, alliances or interactions of any kind. You have neither proof of which government department co-ordinated your mythical cover-up, nor circumstantial evidence.

I don't know whether this is stupidity so total it's frightening, or just wilful dishonesty. Secondly, there are NO contradictions in the conveniences, and there are NO duplicates.

They are all duplicates in that they all prove only that Jules was able to film the impact.

Thirdly, the part of the tower visible from Naudet's location was ONE TWELFTH - the top third of the north face. Different figures elsewhere are because they are in a different context.

Please explain, providing references.

Fourthly, here's a little example of how something can be unique and not unique at the same time : the letter A - as in "the cat sat on the mat" - is unique in being the only A in the alphabet, but not unique in not being the only letter. The Naudet film is unique in showing the impact, but not unique in not being the only film of the plane. Is that clear enough for you, or are you completely beyond hope ?

You are equivocating. How does being 'unique but not unique' prove that the film was part of a cover-up?

I'M supposed to be the confused one ? - yet first you're saying you want my essay banned from the net, then you're
effectively advertising it. Maybe I should be flattered by the attention (I'm not), or grateful for the free plug - if your idiotic rantings have folk checking out the original.

If you think any publicity is good publicity, you must not get much good publicity.

Then we have Gravy, who blithely announces he doesn't have the Naudet film and hasn't seen it - and he probably doesn't even understand why that absolves me of any responsibility to pay any attention to his opinions on my essay - which is an investigation of the film. If he hasn't seen it, he doesn't know what he's talking about - period. This is the kind of nonsense I got from some clown who insisted there were at least a dozen firemen at Church and Lispenard, because the film's commentary said so : not on screen, there aren't, but then if HE watched the bloody film, he'd probably see what he wanted, not what was there. And that's the problem with all of you - you all start from the prejudice that you know what the truth is, and the idea that the poor little innocent Naudets were complicit in 9/11 is so obviously idiotic it hardly needs to be said - and anything contradicting that prejudice has to be disposed of.

We could say the same thing to you, if we wanted to be petty.

I had NO preconceptions about 9/11 when it happened : it took me a week to work out who did it, using logical thought processes, mostly to do with the cui bono question.

Who did it? Or are you 'shooting your mouth off'? (See below.)

I had no preconceptions about the Naudet film, until a year later - as I've already explained - when I heard the word "unique" used about it, for the first time, which started me thinking about it. Let me get this said - and again, it's in the essay, for anybody interested in actually reading it : you lot have ONE conviction, four years and nine months later, after international investigations costing billions - of a guy who pleaded guilty, thereby avoiding a trial. The Bush version of what happened on 9/11 has NEVER - NOT ONCE - to date been successfully put to a trial jury, to establish it as a legal fact. The Kean Report has no legal status : "Our aim has not been to assign individual blame" - that's what courts of law do - or don't, in the case of 9/11. With a case as insubstantial - in some ways non-existent - as that, I would think twice before shooting my mouth off claiming to know for a fact who was behind 9/11. Until a jury finds them guilty, you know as much, or as little, as the rest of us, and a touch of humility would be welcome.

See previous comment. My statement that you are confused still stands.

 

[gumboot]

Nice post Orphia.

-Andrew

 

[Ray Ubinger]

Lack of firehouse footage by Gedeon at 8:46 because Gedeon was at Church-Murray then

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


The Fire writes:

> Because it was of no interest to the story.

It was of central interest to the story: their subject Tony would finally be getting a fire to go to. They specifically, sarcastically lament how all they had up until then was "a great cooking show." That is, just the garrison life of firemen, eating together and hanging around. No boy-becomes-man-by-fighting-blazes stuff yet. It's a good thing for the Naudets that S11 came along and made their documentary sellable.


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

(Note: The quote someone posted from an article about the Naudet movie, wherein Gedeon is said to have ridden in a pickup truck with three firemen, was from Gedeon's THIRD venture down Church St. that morning. That ride is in the movie--it's when they just HAPPEN to catch a cameo of Rudy Giuliani walking up Church St., and the WTC-2 dust is already everywhere.)

And by the way aren't GAS LEAKS "quite serious" enough, contrary to the Naudet firemen's no-big-deal attitude on their way to the alleged odor of alleged gas at Church & Lispenard at 8:30? See the pictures in Les Raphael's article of the 2001 Father's Day fire which started as a gas leak and claimed the lives of three FDNYers. This horrific incident somehow merits no mention in the Naudet film, despite that it was big news to FDNY and occurred in the Naudets' first week of filming. I figure they knew that if they mentioned it, they could not later use the carefully prepared lines about the 9/11 gas odor call being no big deal.


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

> I'm not commenting on that since I don't know New York and as such cannot be certain that the clip is shot where you said.

Observe the matching location details:

Reaction Shot at top, shot at 8:46; at bottom, ADMITTED footage by Gedeon Naudet from after the 2nd Hit but before the 1st Demolition:
http://tinyurl.com/dvxft

More admitted Gedeon Naudet footage at the same intersection:
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/blockwalk.htm

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

Church-Murray photographed in 2006 by Google Earth:
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/spookcentral3.htm


> That clip doesn't say anything except someone, one person looking at the sky.

First of all it's at least three people reacting--Gray T Shirt man, Briefcase man, and the infamous so-called 'Condi Rice lookalike'. Moreover, by the known location, the direction they're reacting in is the direction of WTC two blocks away. The view of WTC from this location is actually shown in the clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm

> and it doesn't show the date it was shot. The lack of dust mean nothing.

The lack of dust is highly significant for pegging it as being shot before the 1st Collapse. The row of squarish blobs of light in the middle of the street further narrow the timing, by deduction from the relative height of the sun, so we know the bravenewworld clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
is the earliest of Gedeon's Church-Murray shots, because the row of squarish blobs of light (westward morning sunlight reflected back eastward off the windows of the visible Emigrant Savings Bank on the SW corner of Church-Murray) are more eastward than in the other Church-Murray clips. More eastward means more acute angle of reflection means lower sun means earlier.


> And you know absolutely nothing about the editing process, do you?

I think I've learned a thing or two in my time but I could be wrong. Thanks for keeping your disagreement fact- and experience-based.


Ray Ubinger

 

[DavidJames]

I think I've learned a thing or two in my time...

may I suggest the next thing on your list be the quote function?