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

Leslie Raphael's (Public) Conveniences

Please read my stuff twice if it will get you to stop asking questions twice

Gravy writes:

> Let me know when you uncover [the] evidence 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

Didn't you yourself admit there's no other way there'd be rubble and yellow tape and trash cans and casual pedestrians all out in the middle of the street?
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
Is it that you do you not yet see that that is Church-Murray?
Certainly you know my version of how we know that it was shot at 8:46.


> Let me know when you uncover [the] evidence that Gedeon Naudet was on the scene at that time

He's the obvious best guess, because
that footage was shot by someone
it's exclusive to their movie
they were a two-brother documentary team
we know where the other brother was
and the location exactly matches KNOWN footage of Gedeon's from later in the movie.


> Let me know when you uncover [the] evidence that [Gedeon Naudet] filmed the scene you presented

See previous answer.


> Let me know when you uncover [the] evidence that audio is original to the clip you presented

Gravy, this is now the THIRD time that I have specifically said I think the audio of
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
was SYNTHESIZED and OVERLAID for dramatic effect. I think you and Arkman Shadeguy may both be deliberately misreading me.


Ray Ubinger
 
Okay, You Knowingly Used A Video Clip With Fake Audio. You Knew That When You First Posted, But Failed To Mention It.

Some People Here Actually Give A Damn About What Happened On 9/11 And Don't Appreciate People Faking Evidence.

Get Lost, Creep.

edited for emphasis.
 
Last edited:
In case my last post wasn't clear, what I meant to say is,
"Get lost you despicable lying creep."
 
The Naudets are the fakes

Gravy writes:

> Okay, You Used A Video Clip With Fake Audio

The clip's audio and visual are excerpted EXACTLY as they appear ON THE NAUDET DVD.

For the third time, you can watch the whole movie online at
thewebfairy.com/911/popcorn
then click
911 Televised Version

The clip in question occurs probably within the first five minutes, even counting the Nextel CEO's intro and Robert DeNiro's intro. Counting from when we see a seagull flying over the river and the WTC in the background, it's about 2 minutes and 10 seconds.

The audio sounds like more like THUNDER to me, than any kind of crash. Even I, who accuse the Naudets of being accessories to mass murder, have never regarded that audio snippet as anything but an OBVIOUS overlay. I have NEVER thought that it might be seriously intended to be taken as authentic audio of the 1st Hit. It has always struck me as a forgivable indulgence to dramatic license on the Naudets' part. That "forgivable" is coming from ME. I accuse them of heinous evil, but not for adding one brief, obviously fake sound for dramatic effect.

Slow motion normally doesn't have audio, so the Naudets (NOT I) added some thunderclappy track from some synthesizer to get the audience adrenaline going about how everything changed in that moment. I think this obsession you have with the audio on that clip may just be a diversionary tactic.


Ray Ubinger
 
Gah back, you sucker for Hollywood storylines passed off as respectable documentaries

Gravy writes:

> Do you really think that people here won't investigate your "research?"

I'm afraid they won't, but I'm hopeful they will.

> You're posting on a skeptic's forum.

So get skeptical about the Naudets and their corny scripted faux documentary already.

Get skeptical about why they faked Tony's attendance at the September 1, 2001 funeral of mysteriously deceased FDNY rookie Michael Gorumba
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/crowd.htm

Get skeptical about why they mirror-imaged the shot of Tony where the alleged funeral truck passes him
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm

Get skeptical about why Tony is never shown doing one lick of actual firefighting anywhere in the entire movie.

Get skeptical about his tall tale from Ground Zero wherein he alleges that he saw someone RUNNING AROUND while holding their own SEVERED-AT-THE-SHOULDER arm.
http://911foreknowledge.com/badbleed.htm

Get skeptical already, you alleged skeptic!


Ray Ubinger
newly empowered to post whole links :-)
 
Humor this

David James writes:

> I've developed a quick little questionnaire to help me understand the thought process of some posters

What are your criteria for which lucky posters get your little questionnaire? Do you see yourself as treating them prejudicially as a class? Why don't you act like others here who go to the effort of raising some fair, intelligent questions about what I actually write, instead of crashing in with six huge off-topics for me to hop to out of the blue? I mean, if understanding my thought processes is really your goal?

Have you considered what you would do if you came to believe my thesis of the Naudet movie is correct?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
 
Ray Ubinger said:
David James writes:

> I've developed a quick little questionnaire to help me understand the thought process of some posters

What are your criteria for which lucky posters get your little questionnaire? Do you see yourself as treating them prejudicially as a class? Why don't you act like others here who go to the effort of raising some fair, intelligent questions about what I actually write, instead of crashing in with six huge off-topics for me to hop to out of the blue? I mean, if understanding my thought processes is really your goal?

Have you considered what you would do if you came to believe my thesis of the Naudet movie is correct?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
Click to expand...
afraid to answer?
 
Dear "Ray Ubinger,"

My family had friends on what you call "American Air Force Blob 11."

You have provided no evidence for your claims.

You're a despicable creep.

Get lost.
 
Thanks for your comments, Wildcat, Fire, gumboot, Gravy and others.

orphia nay said:
Is it just me, or is anyone else wondering, if the Naudets were 'in on a cover-up', why wasn't Gédéon filming back-up footage of the impact, instead of supposedly filming the backs of a few people (when Jules was lucky to capture the impact at all)?
Click to expand...

Ray Ubinger said:
ophia nay was saying it would be suspicious if someone were filming within sight at the impact moment and didn't show us. I'm agreeing with that and arguing that that's exactly what Gedeon Naudet did on the east side of Church St. between Park Pl. and Murray St.
Click to expand...

You're saying Gédéon filmed the backs of people at the exact moment of the impact and backup footage of the impact itself.

Would you like to buy some of my hyperdimensional windchimes? Only $79.95 plus p&p.


Church&Murray is 4 and a half blocks from 100 Duane St (the firehouse). Just because Jules said Gédéon was at the firehouse doesn't mean he knew his exact movements. It doesn't count as evidence of a cover-up if Gédéon walked 300metres while filming local street scenes. It doesn't even count as a 'lie'.


Ray, you are confusing 'get skeptical' with 'be gullible'.
 
Ray Ubinger said:
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?
Click to expand...

AD = Assistant Director. The AD Department are in charge of a film set.

Ray Ubinger said:
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.
Click to expand...

Convenient.

I'm going to call BS on this. I know for a fact the raw material for their doco was recorded on multiple days. Until I see this letter I'm going to assume the 140hrs is the TOTAL FOOTAGE RECORDED over the entire span of recording the doco.

Why would they demand retraction of only footage recorded on 9/11? That makes no sense whatsoever.

-Andrew
 
By the way, I'm not convinced this footage was made at 8:46am.

Ray, can you tell us where Gédéon was said to be at the time of the North Tower's collapse? [Edited to Add: And the South Tower's collapse for that matter.]


(And I keep forgetting to say, the 'Condi Rice lookalike' looks like a man to me.)
 
Last edited:
I have the Naudet's lawyers' letter saved to pc. While it does say "they shot 140 hours of video footage of that fateful day", it also says their footage was the only known film of the first plane strike. It must be added (I've read elsewhere) that they filmed hundreds of hours of film over the months they were filming, so it would be odd that 140 hours were in one day.

How many cameramen are listed in the film's credits, Ray?
 
Ray Ubinger said:
>>> [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?
Click to expand...

Because it was of no interest to the story. 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.
It's called an "Editorial Process".

> 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.
Click to expand...

Don't be an arse. Thats not what I'm talking about and you know it. I'm talking about shooting schedules and lighting.

> 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 ...
Click to expand...

And? You still need to adjust lighting. You still need to check out who does what when. I offered explanations on the whys based on my own experience and not because I know the NAudets schedule by heart. There are more things going on behind the scenes of a shoot than what you seem to think. You don't just turn up with a camera and start filming and Voila! You have awardwinning footage.

> 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.
Click to expand...

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.

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
Click to expand...

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.
That clip doesn't say anything except someone, one person looking at the sky. It doesn't show the reason why he's looking up, it doesn't show anyone else reacting and it doesn't show the date it was shot. The lack of dust mean nothing.
And you know absolutely nothing about the editing process, do you?
 
Ray Ubinger said:
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.)
Click to expand...
Maybe we ARE supposed to think it's pedestrian reaction to the 1st hit, but what if it's not?

You said yourself it occured in a "terror montage" (I tried watching the 9/11-movie from your link, but I can't stand pixellated flash-movies) and it's common for film makers to re-contextualise footage to make a point. It's called editing. The only thing you have, are people looking up suddenly and you claim it's happening at 8:46am.

What is your basis for that claim? That people are looking up? People look up all the time. There, I just looked up. Does that mean I saw a plane hit the World Trade Center?

edit: Ok, so people don't look up and react with horror all the time. Unless they're looking at Dylan Avery. Ba-dum-tsji!

They could be looking at, and reacting to, the collapse of one of the towers.
 
Last edited:
140 hours of googling may not find the Naudet lawyers' letter to Dylan Avery

Andrew Gumboot writes:

> AD = Assistant Director. The AD Department are in charge of a film set.

Thanks.


>> 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.

> Convenient.

For the Naudet lawyers, yes. Convenient for me would have been if the first google link had had the letter.

> I'm going to call BS on this.

I'm going to stand by my claim: the Naudet lawyers' letter to Dylan Avery said the Naudets have 140 hours of footage from the one day 9/11. Neither of us will be vindicated as long as the letter remains unfindable.

> I know for a fact the raw material for their doco was recorded on multiple days.

I never said it wasn't, and neither did the Naudet lawyers, and neither did I say they said so.

> Until I see this letter

down the memory hole

> I'm going to assume the 140hrs is the TOTAL FOOTAGE RECORDED over the entire span of recording the doco.

Several sources do say that very thing. But the Naudet lawyers' letter to Dylan Avery said they had 140 hours of footage from that one day.

> Why would they demand retraction of only footage recorded on 9/11?

They didn't, nor did I say they did.

I wonder why they made a big deal out of a little of Dylan's movie showing their footage. He doesn't even have anything bad to say about them. My site is almost entirely their footage, and I openly accuse the Naudets of being accessories to mass murder, but they apparently want to avoid drawing any attention to that kind of talk. To prove libel they would have to prove my accusation false, right?


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
 
Still accusing people of being complicit in mass murder without evidence, Ray?
Take a hike, you despicable creep.
 
Links galore to Naudet dvd clips, plus my reasoning therefrom, =

Gravy writes:

> My family had friends on what you call "American Air Force Blob 11."

You mean this Cessna-sized, missile-shaped thing that Jules Naudet photographed emitting an intense white light flash just before it hit Tower 1?
http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig/flashframe.jpg

> You have provided no evidence for your claims.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
 
Still beating your wife?

Gravy wishes:

> Still accusing people of being complicit in mass murder without evidence, Ray?

Your refusal to see the extensive evidence at 911foreknowledge.com doesn't make it go away.


Your attempted explanation of why you got mad at me when you thought I'd added fake audio to a Naudet video clip, but you won't get mad at the Naudets now that I've clarified that's how the clip appears in their own movie:

none


Your attempted explanation for why the Naudets inserted alleged FNDY rookie Tony Benetatos into the 01SEP2001 funeral scene of mysteriously deceased (28AUG2001) FDNY rookie Michael Gorumba

http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/crowd.htm

none


Your attempted explanation for why Tony's not to be seen doing one lick of actual firefighting anywhere in the entire movie:

none


But you dislike me and call me a despicable creep, so that's supposed to make me think you're right that I have no evidence? Argument from Intimidation.


Ray Ubinger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom