Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Leslie Raphael's (Public) Conveniences
- Thread starter Orphia Nay
- Start date
Hawk one
Emperor of the Internet
Sorry about that, Hunstman, but like I said, my original paragraph wasn't good communication. At least this time I think my message got across. Right?
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
I was just playing, referencing the fact that your nested quotes bears a remarkable similarity to the "hypnotism spinners" you always see in cartoons
Ray Ubinger
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
- Messages
- 133
Gedeon Naudet's 1st Hit Pedestrian Reaction Shot
Gravy writes:
> Ray, again, what makes you think that the clip shows the reaction to the first plane hitting?
Gravy, again, I think the thing that hit the first Tower was NOT a plane:
thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig/flashframe.jpg
missilegate.com
BUT, I am not interested in getting distracted away from discussing Gedeon Naudet's 1st Hit Pedestrian Reaction Shot. So I will pretend you asked, "What makes you think that the clip shows the reaction to the 1st Hit?" Answers:
The context and sequential placement within the movie
and
the fact that it STARTS with NOBODY looking up, with people just walking along normally, and then SUDDENLY at least three of the pedestrians look up or around.
Question back for you: What do you imagine we are supposed to think this clip WAS, if NOT a clip of pedestrian reaction at the instant of the 1st Hit? What do you think would be the Naudets' explanation of it? (Note: They don't in fact say anything about it -- they just show it, and just once, at the top of the sorta 'terror preview' montage early in the movie. The stuff right afterward is more pedestrians reacting, mostly dumbstruck, but THOSE clips all START with people looking up, they are AFTER the 1st Hit.)
> Remember, these people are two blocks away.
More like five, when you count all the over to where WTC-1 was. But yeah, they were fairly close. And when American Airforce Blob 11 came divebombing in at some 400+ mph, making whatever sound it made, they reacted.
> The two women in the foreground don't even flinch involuntarily from the plane supposedly roaring overhead and exploding. Not likely.
Again, the clip appears on the dvd itself in SLOW MOTION. It is showing only about the first HALF SECOND of people's INITIAL jolt of reaction to the sound of the 1st Hit. Naturally some people react faster than others, but certainly everyone else also reacted after the brief clip ends. And I have no idea what sound, IF ANY, American Airforce Blob 11 made prior to impact. Even if the famous 1st Hit audio is to be believed, the flight sound was way quieter than the impact sound. The flight sound on the dvd is not a roaring or screaming jet sound. It is more like a high-speed but SINGLE-engine PROPELLOR sound, to my ear.
> You didn't answer my question: do you know if the audio is original to the clip?
I thought I talked about the audio of the clip
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
in a previous post in this thread.
I thought I said it strikes me as synthesized, added to the SLOW-MOTION (meaning usually soundless) clip by dramatic license, and that it is irrelevant to my analysis.
> Where are the cars, trucks and buses?
Blocked off, to the south of the camera. Same reason pedestrians are completely at ease walking out in the middle of the usually busy street.
> Do you have evidence that Church Street was blocked off for some reason?
Well I don't have evidence of the reason, but the clip shows clearly enough, as you yourself point out, that it must have been blocked. Also, though I regret I can't point to this as an excerpt, I have seen at least one snippet of footage (not in Naudet movie) that shows a flashing yellow light on a truck in the area where you and I agree the blocking of traffic would have had to be (just south of where the camera was).
> 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.
Yet there it is. And who knew this was anything but a normal day yet? Only the insiders. I still call it construction debris because that's what it looks like, complete with strewn rubble and with scaffolding on much of the sidewalk at that whole intersection.
Now, I was NOT going to bring this up, but if you really want to know more about the purpose of the debris and yellow tape and scaffolding, we at 911foreknowledge.com have connected it to the fact that "plane" debris from the 2nd Hit was planted at that very same intersection:
911foreknowledge.com/debris
> So, very little – and inconsistent – reaction, no vehicles, people in the street, debris in the street.
Very little and inconsistent reaction? You don't see at least three people suddenly whirling their heads around and/or up all at the same time? All within the first approx. half second of what they're reacting to?
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
> ETA: Church Street is hammered with traffic today, with no WTC there. It was worse in 2001.
Not when it was blocked to vehicle traffic, as it clearly was in the Reaction clip, since as you yourself notice there's rubble and trashcans and pedestrians all in the middle of the street.
What is this ETA abbreviation, please? Edited To Add?
Ray Ubinger
Gravy writes:
> Ray, again, what makes you think that the clip shows the reaction to the first plane hitting?
Gravy, again, I think the thing that hit the first Tower was NOT a plane:
thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig/flashframe.jpg
missilegate.com
BUT, I am not interested in getting distracted away from discussing Gedeon Naudet's 1st Hit Pedestrian Reaction Shot. So I will pretend you asked, "What makes you think that the clip shows the reaction to the 1st Hit?" Answers:
The context and sequential placement within the movie
and
the fact that it STARTS with NOBODY looking up, with people just walking along normally, and then SUDDENLY at least three of the pedestrians look up or around.
Question back for you: What do you imagine we are supposed to think this clip WAS, if NOT a clip of pedestrian reaction at the instant of the 1st Hit? What do you think would be the Naudets' explanation of it? (Note: They don't in fact say anything about it -- they just show it, and just once, at the top of the sorta 'terror preview' montage early in the movie. The stuff right afterward is more pedestrians reacting, mostly dumbstruck, but THOSE clips all START with people looking up, they are AFTER the 1st Hit.)
> Remember, these people are two blocks away.
More like five, when you count all the over to where WTC-1 was. But yeah, they were fairly close. And when American Airforce Blob 11 came divebombing in at some 400+ mph, making whatever sound it made, they reacted.
> The two women in the foreground don't even flinch involuntarily from the plane supposedly roaring overhead and exploding. Not likely.
Again, the clip appears on the dvd itself in SLOW MOTION. It is showing only about the first HALF SECOND of people's INITIAL jolt of reaction to the sound of the 1st Hit. Naturally some people react faster than others, but certainly everyone else also reacted after the brief clip ends. And I have no idea what sound, IF ANY, American Airforce Blob 11 made prior to impact. Even if the famous 1st Hit audio is to be believed, the flight sound was way quieter than the impact sound. The flight sound on the dvd is not a roaring or screaming jet sound. It is more like a high-speed but SINGLE-engine PROPELLOR sound, to my ear.
> You didn't answer my question: do you know if the audio is original to the clip?
I thought I talked about the audio of the clip
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
in a previous post in this thread.
I thought I said it strikes me as synthesized, added to the SLOW-MOTION (meaning usually soundless) clip by dramatic license, and that it is irrelevant to my analysis.
> Where are the cars, trucks and buses?
Blocked off, to the south of the camera. Same reason pedestrians are completely at ease walking out in the middle of the usually busy street.
> Do you have evidence that Church Street was blocked off for some reason?
Well I don't have evidence of the reason, but the clip shows clearly enough, as you yourself point out, that it must have been blocked. Also, though I regret I can't point to this as an excerpt, I have seen at least one snippet of footage (not in Naudet movie) that shows a flashing yellow light on a truck in the area where you and I agree the blocking of traffic would have had to be (just south of where the camera was).
> 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.
Yet there it is. And who knew this was anything but a normal day yet? Only the insiders. I still call it construction debris because that's what it looks like, complete with strewn rubble and with scaffolding on much of the sidewalk at that whole intersection.
Now, I was NOT going to bring this up, but if you really want to know more about the purpose of the debris and yellow tape and scaffolding, we at 911foreknowledge.com have connected it to the fact that "plane" debris from the 2nd Hit was planted at that very same intersection:
911foreknowledge.com/debris
> So, very little – and inconsistent – reaction, no vehicles, people in the street, debris in the street.
Very little and inconsistent reaction? You don't see at least three people suddenly whirling their heads around and/or up all at the same time? All within the first approx. half second of what they're reacting to?
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
> ETA: Church Street is hammered with traffic today, with no WTC there. It was worse in 2001.
Not when it was blocked to vehicle traffic, as it clearly was in the Reaction clip, since as you yourself notice there's rubble and trashcans and pedestrians all in the middle of the street.
What is this ETA abbreviation, please? Edited To Add?
Ray Ubinger
Ray Ubinger
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
- Messages
- 133
Another person who can smell the stench of lies in the Naudet movie?
Regnad Kcin writes:
> Lord, not another one.
Not another what?
> Mr. Ubinger, have you ever been to NYC?
Yes. Why do you ask?
> While the Twin Towers were still standing?
Yes. I took pictures from the WTC-2 observation deck. Why do you ask?
Ray Ubinger
Regnad Kcin writes:
> Lord, not another one.
Not another what?
> Mr. Ubinger, have you ever been to NYC?
Yes. Why do you ask?
> While the Twin Towers were still standing?
Yes. I took pictures from the WTC-2 observation deck. Why do you ask?
Ray Ubinger
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
Ray:
I've developed a quick little questionnaire to help me understand the thought process of some posters, would you humor me by answering the few questions below?
1. Who shot JFK?
2. Who blew up the Murrah Building?
3. Did the U.S. land on the moon in 1969?
4. What are your thoughts on fluoride?
5. How did Marilyn Monroe die?
6. Are you concerned about the white trails you see coming from jets high in the sky?
I've developed a quick little questionnaire to help me understand the thought process of some posters, would you humor me by answering the few questions below?
1. Who shot JFK?
2. Who blew up the Murrah Building?
3. Did the U.S. land on the moon in 1969?
4. What are your thoughts on fluoride?
5. How did Marilyn Monroe die?
6. Are you concerned about the white trails you see coming from jets high in the sky?
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
Ray Ubinger
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
- Messages
- 133
140 hours
Thanks gumboot/Andrew (preference?) for being specific about your film industry credentials at my request. What is the "AD Department," though? ADvertising, or is that A.D. like two words?
And now the part about the Naudet lawyers' letter. Here's where I'm still struggling with this forum's quote-in-reply. I hit Quote, but all it shows is your response to me, not my words that your response is to:
> 140 hours for one day?
Yes. Just like I said the first time (but that part won't quote for me). The Naudet lawyers' letter threatening Dylan Avery with a lawsuit, claims the Naudets have ONE HUNDRED FORTY hours of footage from that ONE DAY. Unfortunately for me, I can't find the letter itself on the Web anymore.
Ray Ubinger
Thanks gumboot/Andrew (preference?) for being specific about your film industry credentials at my request. What is the "AD Department," though? ADvertising, or is that A.D. like two words?
And now the part about the Naudet lawyers' letter. Here's where I'm still struggling with this forum's quote-in-reply. I hit Quote, but all it shows is your response to me, not my words that your response is to:
> 140 hours for one day?
Yes. Just like I said the first time (but that part won't quote for me). The Naudet lawyers' letter threatening Dylan Avery with a lawsuit, claims the Naudets have ONE HUNDRED FORTY hours of footage from that ONE DAY. Unfortunately for me, I can't find the letter itself on the Web anymore.
Ray Ubinger
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
6 cameras x 24 hrs = 144 hrs
7 cameras x 20 hrs = 140 hrs
8 cameras x 17.5 hrs = 140 hrs
9 cameras x 16 hrs = 144 hrs
10 cameras x 14 hrs = 140 hrs
etc
Without knowing how many cameras they were running concurrently, we can make no judgement as to the viability of the 140 hrs claim.
edit: To correct spelling
Ray Ubinger
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
- Messages
- 133
All powered up but nothing filmed?
The Fire writes:
> [T]he 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.
So why ZERO footage from 8:46 a.m. at the firehouse where the Naudet movie narration says Gedeon Naudet was at that time? My view is that the narration is lying, that Gedeon was out filming at Church & Murray at 8:46. What's your view?
Ray Ubinger
The Fire writes:
> [T]he 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.
So why ZERO footage from 8:46 a.m. at the firehouse where the Naudet movie narration says Gedeon Naudet was at that time? My view is that the narration is lying, that Gedeon was out filming at Church & Murray at 8:46. What's your view?
Ray Ubinger
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
Well, you were addressing The_Fire, but I'll jump in anyway. My view is that your claim is unsubstantiated.
ETA: Oh, and please address post #32 in this thread.
Ray Ubinger
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
- Messages
- 133
How to see what the Naudet reaction shot means and who filmed it
Regarding
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
I wrote
>> This 3-4-second segment runs from 2:14 to 2:18 on the DVD clock.
Arkan Wolfshade writes:
> Source DVD?
The world-famous, Emmy-winning S11 mock-you-drama by the Naudet "brothers." Owned by probably every public library in America. Viewable online at
thewebfairy.com/911/popcorn
then click
911 Televised Version
> What is filmed immediately prior and immediately after?
Immediately prior is shown at
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld2.htm
Immediately after is more clips of pedestrian reaction, but, THOSE clips all start with people already looking up, which to me makes them NON-suspicious, POST-1st-Hit clips. The clip I discovered starts with people walking along normally, NOBODY looking up, but, DURING the clip, several people suddenly turn their gaze around and/or up. I submit that 8:46 a.m. was THE time of that day when that sequence of events would have happened.
> Evidence this is Naudet footage?
It is exclusive to their movie, appearing only there, nowhere else. Its background details exactly match admitted footage by Gedeon Naudet from later in the movie. Marcus Icke documented this by the following comparison pair of screenshots:
tinyurl.com/dvxft
>> [T]he specific location is unknown.
> It should be knowable.
It is now. That text is from 2004 when I discovered the clip. We have since nailed down the location exactly: east gutter of Church Street, between Park Place and Murray Street (closer to Murray than to Park), looking north and west at the west side of the Church-Murray intersection.
911foreknowledge.com/debris/spookcentral3.htm
>> [W]hen you examine it, it turns out to be: the only known footage of pedestrian reaction to the FIRST Hit at the INSTANT the First Hit happened.
> Examination of only this footage can not lead to this conclusion.
When else were pedestrians walking along normally, nobody looking up, and then suddenly they whirled their heads up or around to look somewhere new?
> Evidence you, or someone, has examined all available footage from that day and verified that this is the earliest (chronologically speaking).
Just being the earliest S11 footage of all wouldn't imply foreknowledge. But already having a camera filming people and capturing their reaction at that very instant, AND LYING ABOUT THE CAMERAMAN'S LOCATION AT THAT TIME, is nothing short of incriminating.
> 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.
Don't forget they also explicitly say their second cameraman was still at the firehouse at 8:46. Half of this lie is because the truth is that he was filming initial pedestrian reaction with foreknowledge. The other half of the lie is a half-truth: they need to establish that he was SOMEWHERE other than where JULES was filming the famous 1st Hit impact. The reason they need to establish the brothers as being in different places when the **** hit the fan, is that that is the basis of the major Separation Anxiety subplot, in which each brother thinks the other dead.
> You can not assume that Gedeon was operating the camera for this footage.
I don't assume it, I figured it out, by the fact that there is ADMITTED footage by Gedeon later in the movie that's at the exact same location. See above comparison pair of screenshots by Marcus Icke. Gedeon is explicitly depicted as traversing up and down the same stretch of Church Street three separate times that morning. So there are positive verifiable reasons to think Gedeon shot it, and only one unverifiable reason to think he didn't, that being that the movie says (doesn't show) that he was still back at the firehouse. This makes Gedeon the obvious best guess for who filmed it. The only alternative would be some cameraman whom the movie never talks about and who sold the Naudets his footage and whose story has never been told.
> Do any of the firemen from that firehouse claim he was not there at, or around 8:46 AM?
Of course not, because that would undermine the carefully scripted lie that they were part of.
>> 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
I acknowledge that, but still stand by my statement at least until you can suggest what ELSE the Naudets, by their placement of the clip, might have meant for us to think it is footage of, if NOT pedestrian reaction to one of the Hits. Rewatch it with the leadup at
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld2.htm
> 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.
It is clear enough to me on TV with frame enlargement. You're entitled to a different opinion if you get that far in checking it out for yourself.
>> 3. thin black woman in middle/background (somewhat blurry, possible
Condi Rice lookalike)
> Trying to poison the well?
I don't know what you mean. I simply described her so people can see her as the third person reacting. She's in mid-background in the middle of the street, appearing from behind Gray TShirt Guy as the camera moves forward.
Ray Ubinger
Regarding
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
I wrote
>> This 3-4-second segment runs from 2:14 to 2:18 on the DVD clock.
Arkan Wolfshade writes:
> Source DVD?
The world-famous, Emmy-winning S11 mock-you-drama by the Naudet "brothers." Owned by probably every public library in America. Viewable online at
thewebfairy.com/911/popcorn
then click
911 Televised Version
> What is filmed immediately prior and immediately after?
Immediately prior is shown at
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld2.htm
Immediately after is more clips of pedestrian reaction, but, THOSE clips all start with people already looking up, which to me makes them NON-suspicious, POST-1st-Hit clips. The clip I discovered starts with people walking along normally, NOBODY looking up, but, DURING the clip, several people suddenly turn their gaze around and/or up. I submit that 8:46 a.m. was THE time of that day when that sequence of events would have happened.
> Evidence this is Naudet footage?
It is exclusive to their movie, appearing only there, nowhere else. Its background details exactly match admitted footage by Gedeon Naudet from later in the movie. Marcus Icke documented this by the following comparison pair of screenshots:
tinyurl.com/dvxft
>> [T]he specific location is unknown.
> It should be knowable.
It is now. That text is from 2004 when I discovered the clip. We have since nailed down the location exactly: east gutter of Church Street, between Park Place and Murray Street (closer to Murray than to Park), looking north and west at the west side of the Church-Murray intersection.
911foreknowledge.com/debris/spookcentral3.htm
>> [W]hen you examine it, it turns out to be: the only known footage of pedestrian reaction to the FIRST Hit at the INSTANT the First Hit happened.
> Examination of only this footage can not lead to this conclusion.
When else were pedestrians walking along normally, nobody looking up, and then suddenly they whirled their heads up or around to look somewhere new?
> Evidence you, or someone, has examined all available footage from that day and verified that this is the earliest (chronologically speaking).
Just being the earliest S11 footage of all wouldn't imply foreknowledge. But already having a camera filming people and capturing their reaction at that very instant, AND LYING ABOUT THE CAMERAMAN'S LOCATION AT THAT TIME, is nothing short of incriminating.
> 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.
Don't forget they also explicitly say their second cameraman was still at the firehouse at 8:46. Half of this lie is because the truth is that he was filming initial pedestrian reaction with foreknowledge. The other half of the lie is a half-truth: they need to establish that he was SOMEWHERE other than where JULES was filming the famous 1st Hit impact. The reason they need to establish the brothers as being in different places when the **** hit the fan, is that that is the basis of the major Separation Anxiety subplot, in which each brother thinks the other dead.
> You can not assume that Gedeon was operating the camera for this footage.
I don't assume it, I figured it out, by the fact that there is ADMITTED footage by Gedeon later in the movie that's at the exact same location. See above comparison pair of screenshots by Marcus Icke. Gedeon is explicitly depicted as traversing up and down the same stretch of Church Street three separate times that morning. So there are positive verifiable reasons to think Gedeon shot it, and only one unverifiable reason to think he didn't, that being that the movie says (doesn't show) that he was still back at the firehouse. This makes Gedeon the obvious best guess for who filmed it. The only alternative would be some cameraman whom the movie never talks about and who sold the Naudets his footage and whose story has never been told.
> Do any of the firemen from that firehouse claim he was not there at, or around 8:46 AM?
Of course not, because that would undermine the carefully scripted lie that they were part of.
>> 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
I acknowledge that, but still stand by my statement at least until you can suggest what ELSE the Naudets, by their placement of the clip, might have meant for us to think it is footage of, if NOT pedestrian reaction to one of the Hits. Rewatch it with the leadup at
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld2.htm
> 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.
It is clear enough to me on TV with frame enlargement. You're entitled to a different opinion if you get that far in checking it out for yourself.
>> 3. thin black woman in middle/background (somewhat blurry, possible
Condi Rice lookalike)
> Trying to poison the well?
I don't know what you mean. I simply described her so people can see her as the third person reacting. She's in mid-background in the middle of the street, appearing from behind Gray TShirt Guy as the camera moves forward.
Ray Ubinger
The_Fire
Unimpressed Female
Unsubstantiated claim from your side. Just because the footage weren't used, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
There are also the possibility that no footage were shot because Gedeon were still setting up. Indoor lighting is generally a pain in the rear if you are doing anything else than the basic 3-point interview setting.
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.
And as previously told: Just because it weren't used, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Ray Ubinger
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
- Messages
- 133
ID'ing time and place of foreknowledge-enabled Naudet pedestrian reaction shot
Andrew Gumboot writes:
> 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,
I've posted several bits of footage for different aspects of this conversation. Please specify two that I said were simultaneous but that you think might not have even been on the same day.
> 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.
I know what you mean, but in this case it's actually just a sign of it being Gedeon Naudet footage. ALL his ADMITTED footage has the blue tint problem, throughout the movie. For example his 2nd Hit footage shot at Church & Vesey, with WTC-5 in the foreground:
911hoax.com/gNaudetWTC1_9.asp?intPage=46&PageNum=46
and
911foreknowledge.com/n2hit.htm
> The shot that "looks up to the towers just after the plane hit"
Be careful quoting from memory -- you won't catch me saying a plane was involved!
> 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.
Here I'm pretty sure you're referring to
911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm
which was shot from the same sidewalk vicinity as
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
but looking down Church St., not up it.
First of all the WTC-1 antenna is visible right above the base of the smoke trail. Second of all, there's no wall of smoke billowing up out of WTC-2 yet. Thirdly, no smoke trail anywhere near this massive, if at all, was ever filmed coming out of WTC-7. So,
911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm
is PRE-2nd-Hit footage.
> As for the first WS of the street with the rubble on the road, yellow tape, and zero traffic (in rush hour??? right).
What's a WS?? The reason there was zero traffic, except pedestrians casually walking in the middle of the street, is obviously because the street was blocked. The rubble and yellow tape--and scaffolding all over the sidewalks--is supposed to look like construction is going on, but I think it was to hide plantable "plane parts" to be unveiled at that same intersection, from behind the "construction mess," at the time of the 2nd Hit:
911foreknowledge.com/debris
> It should be fairly easy for a local to identify the location and direction of the shot.
Already done. The location and direction of
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
is:
east gutter of Church Street, shortly south of Murray Street, looking northward and westward at the west half of the Church-Murray intersection.
> From that we can calculate if the directions for the WTC and the time of day match.
Calculate away.
Ray Ubinger
Andrew Gumboot writes:
> 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,
I've posted several bits of footage for different aspects of this conversation. Please specify two that I said were simultaneous but that you think might not have even been on the same day.
> 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.
I know what you mean, but in this case it's actually just a sign of it being Gedeon Naudet footage. ALL his ADMITTED footage has the blue tint problem, throughout the movie. For example his 2nd Hit footage shot at Church & Vesey, with WTC-5 in the foreground:
911hoax.com/gNaudetWTC1_9.asp?intPage=46&PageNum=46
and
911foreknowledge.com/n2hit.htm
> The shot that "looks up to the towers just after the plane hit"
Be careful quoting from memory -- you won't catch me saying a plane was involved!
> 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.
Here I'm pretty sure you're referring to
911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm
which was shot from the same sidewalk vicinity as
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
but looking down Church St., not up it.
First of all the WTC-1 antenna is visible right above the base of the smoke trail. Second of all, there's no wall of smoke billowing up out of WTC-2 yet. Thirdly, no smoke trail anywhere near this massive, if at all, was ever filmed coming out of WTC-7. So,
911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm
is PRE-2nd-Hit footage.
> As for the first WS of the street with the rubble on the road, yellow tape, and zero traffic (in rush hour??? right).
What's a WS?? The reason there was zero traffic, except pedestrians casually walking in the middle of the street, is obviously because the street was blocked. The rubble and yellow tape--and scaffolding all over the sidewalks--is supposed to look like construction is going on, but I think it was to hide plantable "plane parts" to be unveiled at that same intersection, from behind the "construction mess," at the time of the 2nd Hit:
911foreknowledge.com/debris
> It should be fairly easy for a local to identify the location and direction of the shot.
Already done. The location and direction of
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
is:
east gutter of Church Street, shortly south of Murray Street, looking northward and westward at the west half of the Church-Murray intersection.
> From that we can calculate if the directions for the WTC and the time of day match.
Calculate away.
Ray Ubinger
Ray Ubinger
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
- Messages
- 133
Authenticity of Reaction shot, and total fakiness of "Benetatos"
The Fire writes:
> 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.
No way was
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
shot AFTER 9/11: there's no Dust yet. After 9/11, that area looked like the following clips (unedited footage taped live that day by Tim Canale):
911foreknowledge.com/debris/peopleindust.htm
> 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.
BALONEY. That's just their COVER STORY. Their movie was intended to be about S11 all along, ever since they started filming in June 2001. That is my thesis. About this alleged rookie of theirs, "Tony Benetatos" -- for starters, he appears nowhere in the footage from the firefighter boot camp where they allegedly discovered him. Also, he never seen doing one lick of actual firefighting anywhere in the whole movie. An elaborate plot device seems to have been scripted specifically to keep him off camera for most of the big day. Also I've caught them INSERTING him into scenes. And he even gets a SINGING credit, of all things, at the end. One big happy show-biz family, those Duane St. "firefighters!" - including KNOWN TV ACTOR JAMES HANLON
imdb.com/name/nm0360137/
the fireman/narrator/interviewer/co-director who I think masterminded the movie.
> 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).
Fair enough as a general point, but this doesn't hold water in the context of the Brave New World shot
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
I mean, why would you instruct the people you were filming to pretend they were reacting to something overhead? Especially if you were shooting it pre-S11, as you would have to be since the Dust isn't there yet?
Ray Ubinger
The Fire writes:
> 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.
No way was
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
shot AFTER 9/11: there's no Dust yet. After 9/11, that area looked like the following clips (unedited footage taped live that day by Tim Canale):
911foreknowledge.com/debris/peopleindust.htm
> 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.
BALONEY. That's just their COVER STORY. Their movie was intended to be about S11 all along, ever since they started filming in June 2001. That is my thesis. About this alleged rookie of theirs, "Tony Benetatos" -- for starters, he appears nowhere in the footage from the firefighter boot camp where they allegedly discovered him. Also, he never seen doing one lick of actual firefighting anywhere in the whole movie. An elaborate plot device seems to have been scripted specifically to keep him off camera for most of the big day. Also I've caught them INSERTING him into scenes. And he even gets a SINGING credit, of all things, at the end. One big happy show-biz family, those Duane St. "firefighters!" - including KNOWN TV ACTOR JAMES HANLON
imdb.com/name/nm0360137/
the fireman/narrator/interviewer/co-director who I think masterminded the movie.
> 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).
Fair enough as a general point, but this doesn't hold water in the context of the Brave New World shot
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
I mean, why would you instruct the people you were filming to pretend they were reacting to something overhead? Especially if you were shooting it pre-S11, as you would have to be since the Dust isn't there yet?
Ray Ubinger
Ray Ubinger
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
- Messages
- 133
Quote-in-reply
Hawk one writes:
> 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.
That's too bad, because I'm careful about that and I still legitimately sometimes need to quote back more than one level.
> Anyway, you can also just use [ quote ] and [ /quote ] (without the spaces to create a quote tag.
Does that work for quoting back more than one level? Do I say
quote
quote
and then the second-back stuff
and then backslash quote
and then the first-back stuff
and then a final backslash quote?
Yow. For now I continue with this way that I'm sorry is uncustomary and possibly hard on people's eyes.
Ray Ubinger
Hawk one writes:
> 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.
That's too bad, because I'm careful about that and I still legitimately sometimes need to quote back more than one level.
> Anyway, you can also just use [ quote ] and [ /quote ] (without the spaces to create a quote tag.
Does that work for quoting back more than one level? Do I say
quote
quote
and then the second-back stuff
and then backslash quote
and then the first-back stuff
and then a final backslash quote?
Yow. For now I continue with this way that I'm sorry is uncustomary and possibly hard on people's eyes.
Ray Ubinger
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Ray,
When you uncover this evidence:
1) That (in your version of events) Church St. from the WTC heading towards Murray St. was blocked off prior to 8:46 a.m. on 9/11
2) That Gedeon Naudet was on the scene at that time
3) That he filmed the scene you presented
4) That the audio is original to the clip you presented
Let me know.
Otherwise, take a hike. What you've presented so far is asinine. Do you really think that people here won't investigate your "research?" You're posting on a skeptic's forum.
Gah!
When you uncover this evidence:
1) That (in your version of events) Church St. from the WTC heading towards Murray St. was blocked off prior to 8:46 a.m. on 9/11
2) That Gedeon Naudet was on the scene at that time
3) That he filmed the scene you presented
4) That the audio is original to the clip you presented
Let me know.
Otherwise, take a hike. What you've presented so far is asinine. Do you really think that people here won't investigate your "research?" You're posting on a skeptic's forum.
Gah!
Ray Ubinger
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
- Messages
- 133
140 hours in one day
Arkan Wolfshade writes:
> Without knowing how many cameras they were running concurrently, we can make no judgement as to the viability of the 140 hrs claim.
"The tape was shot by TWO brothers, Jules and Gedeon Naudet. They're documentary filmmakers, and old friends of mine," says fireman-ACTOR James Hanlon after the terror-preview montage, 2-3 minutes into the movie.
thewebfairy.com/911/popcorn
then click
911 Televised Version
(By the way, Hanlon then says, "The strange thing is, the tape--the whole story--it kinda happened by accident." That might be the most insidious line in the whole movie. "No, you slick son of a bitch," I want to say back to him, "the STRANGE thing is, the tape kinda happened on PURPOSE.")
Can anyone find the Naudet lawyers' letter to Dylan Avery anymore??
Ray Ubinger
Arkan Wolfshade writes:
> Without knowing how many cameras they were running concurrently, we can make no judgement as to the viability of the 140 hrs claim.
"The tape was shot by TWO brothers, Jules and Gedeon Naudet. They're documentary filmmakers, and old friends of mine," says fireman-ACTOR James Hanlon after the terror-preview montage, 2-3 minutes into the movie.
thewebfairy.com/911/popcorn
then click
911 Televised Version
(By the way, Hanlon then says, "The strange thing is, the tape--the whole story--it kinda happened by accident." That might be the most insidious line in the whole movie. "No, you slick son of a bitch," I want to say back to him, "the STRANGE thing is, the tape kinda happened on PURPOSE.")
Can anyone find the Naudet lawyers' letter to Dylan Avery anymore??
Ray Ubinger
Ray Ubinger
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
- Messages
- 133
I think you may have deliberately misinterpreted my question
>> [T]he 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.
> So why ZERO footage from 8:46 a.m. at the firehouse where the Naudet movie narration says Gedeon Naudet was at that time? My view is that the narration is lying, that Gedeon was out filming at Church & Murray at 8:46. What's your view?
Arkan Wolfshade writes:
> My view is that your claim is unsubstantiated.
What's your view of why there's no footage from Gedeon Naudet at the firehouse at 8:46, if he is to be expected to have had his equipment always ready and if you believe the narration when it says that's where he was?
Also, why did Gedeon (according to the narration) WALK from there to WTC, instead of riding with the firemen whom he had been filming and hanging around with for months? Did no firemen drive from the 100 Duane St. firehouse to WTC in response to the 1st Hit?
Ray Ubinger
>> [T]he 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.
> So why ZERO footage from 8:46 a.m. at the firehouse where the Naudet movie narration says Gedeon Naudet was at that time? My view is that the narration is lying, that Gedeon was out filming at Church & Murray at 8:46. What's your view?
Arkan Wolfshade writes:
> My view is that your claim is unsubstantiated.
What's your view of why there's no footage from Gedeon Naudet at the firehouse at 8:46, if he is to be expected to have had his equipment always ready and if you believe the narration when it says that's where he was?
Also, why did Gedeon (according to the narration) WALK from there to WTC, instead of riding with the firemen whom he had been filming and hanging around with for months? Did no firemen drive from the 100 Duane St. firehouse to WTC in response to the 1st Hit?
Ray Ubinger
Ray Ubinger
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
- Messages
- 133
Lack of 8:46 Gedeon footage from firehouse
>>> [T]he 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.
>> So why ZERO footage from 8:46 a.m. at the firehouse where the Naudet movie narration says Gedeon Naudet was at that time? My view is that the narration is lying, that Gedeon was out filming at Church & Murray at 8:46. What's your view?The Fire writes:
The Fire writes:
> Just because the footage weren't used, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
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?
> There are also the possibility that no footage were shot because Gedeon were still setting up.
Except somebody just got through telling me how prepared serious documentarians should be presumed to be, lots of extra tapes and extra batteries and so forth. I think this was what that experienced film pro Andrew Gumboot from New Zealand said.
> Indoor lighting is generally a pain in the rear if you are doing anything else than the basic 3-point interview setting.
Tell that to all the footage snippets that they shot from inside the firehouse BEFORE 8:30 a.m. that day! The morning shift coming in, the bacon and eggs on the griddle, the officer Dennis Tardio enjoying a quiet moment to himself ...
> 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.
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.
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.
Ray Ubinger
>>> [T]he 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.
>> So why ZERO footage from 8:46 a.m. at the firehouse where the Naudet movie narration says Gedeon Naudet was at that time? My view is that the narration is lying, that Gedeon was out filming at Church & Murray at 8:46. What's your view?The Fire writes:
The Fire writes:
> Just because the footage weren't used, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
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?
> There are also the possibility that no footage were shot because Gedeon were still setting up.
Except somebody just got through telling me how prepared serious documentarians should be presumed to be, lots of extra tapes and extra batteries and so forth. I think this was what that experienced film pro Andrew Gumboot from New Zealand said.
> Indoor lighting is generally a pain in the rear if you are doing anything else than the basic 3-point interview setting.
Tell that to all the footage snippets that they shot from inside the firehouse BEFORE 8:30 a.m. that day! The morning shift coming in, the bacon and eggs on the griddle, the officer Dennis Tardio enjoying a quiet moment to himself ...
> 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.
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.
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.
Ray Ubinger