• 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

Ray Ubinger said:
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
Click to expand...

I took a good look at the "evidence" which you use to accuse people of mass murder, and deduced from that that you're a despicable creep.

You can prove that you're not by going and gathering actual evidence that supports your claims. I'll be here holding my breath, creep.
 
Context of bravenewworld clip

The Fire writes:

> Ray, what are the context? What are happening on either side of that clip?

As I wrote in post #52 in response to Arkan Wolfshade's post #32:

"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."


Incidentally, notice the inexplicable shot of Trinity Church, just south and east of WTC, injected between the orange-shirted camera-toting teenage boy and the helmet-touching fireman:

http://tinyurl.com/k5rtx
aka
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/prod/dialspace/town/pipexdsl/q/aqrf00/ubinger/trinity_church.jpg

I suspect this is an inside joke meaning that Evan Fairbanks, famous "directly underneath" 2nd Hit videographer who came out of nearby Trinity Church STUDIOS shortly after the 1st Hit, was in collusion with the Naudet-FDNY snuff film propaganda team.


Ray Ubinger
 
Ray Ubinger said:
Incidentally, notice the inexplicable shot of Trinity Church, just south and east of WTC, injected between the orange-shirted camera-toting teenage boy and the helmet-touching fireman:

I suspect this is an inside joke meaning that Evan Fairbanks, famous "directly underneath" 2nd Hit videographer who came out of nearby Trinity Church STUDIOS shortly after the 1st Hit, was in collusion with the Naudet-FDNY snuff film propaganda team.
Click to expand...


Darn that Trinity Church for not getting out of the way!

You will have to bring the current archbishop of Canterbury into the conspiracy, since Fairbanks was there to shoot him that day, when he was only the bishop of Wales. I see the Bishop got a promotion.
 
Inexplicable insertion of Trinity Church into Naudet Terror Preview sequence

>> http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld2.htm
>> Incidentally, notice the inexplicable shot of Trinity Church, just south and east of WTC, injected between the orange-shirted camera-toting teenage boy and the helmet-touching fireman:
>> http://tinyurl.com/k5rtx
>> I suspect this is an inside joke meaning that Evan Fairbanks, famous "directly underneath" 2nd Hit videographer who came out of nearby Trinity Church STUDIOS shortly after the 1st Hit, was in collusion with the Naudet-FDNY snuff film propaganda team.


60hzxtl writes:

> Darn that Trinity Church for not getting out of the way!

I'm not sure I follow you. Do you mean out of the way of what would otherwise have been more live footage of the 1st Hit murder weapon in flight, up and to the left behind where Trinity Church is in that shot?

I myself was not going so far as to speculate that the Trinity Church shot was taken at 8:46 a.m. on 9/11. But now that I look again, the clearness of the sky and the angle of the shadows, to my eye at least, do at least seem consistent with, though not otherwise indicative of, such a conclusion.


> You will have to bring the current archbishop of Canterbury into the conspiracy, since Fairbanks was there to shoot him that day, when he was only the bishop of Wales.

I'm not even sure that Fairbanks himself was in on it. There's just this tantalizing clue with the inexplicable Trinity Church shot insertion, and then Fairbanks as the only S11 connection to Trinity Church that I know of.

Can you offer some non-sinister yet evidence-based guess what the Trinity Church shot is doing there in the Naudet movie? The Naudet story never depicts either brother as going farther south than WTC-1.


Ray Ubinger
http://911foreknowledge.com
 
Naudets are blatant liars, agreed?

My # 1 fan Gravy writes:

> You can prove that you're not [a despicable creep] by going and gathering actual evidence that supports your claims [that the Naudets are accessories to mass murder].

Just like Bush does when he goes to war against whomever he wants? Well, you concede for starters that the Naudets are at least bald-faced liars, for having doctored their own footage in at least the following four clips, right?

1.
http://911foreknowledge.com/tony/clocks.htm
(dubbing audio from one TV clip over the TV visual of a different clip)

2.
http://tinyurl.com/5h9bw
aka
http://www.911hoax.com/gNaudetWTC1_9.asp?intPage=46&PageNum=46
(cutting out roughly 1 second of video from the middle of their 2nd Hit clip; see also
http://911foreknowledge.com/n2hit.htm
)

3.
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/crowd.htm
(faking Tony Benetatos' attendance at the 01SEP2001 funeral of mysteriously dead FDNY rookie Michael Gorumba)

4.
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm
(mirror-imaging the shot to make the truck be going in the "correct" direction, consistent with the direction of the real funeral procession)


And you were already real angry at the Naudets because of how you think they deceptively added fake audio to the clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
right?
Or was that just a prejudicial anger against me in particular, when you thought I had done the audio addition, and now that you know it was the Naudets, the evidence can be ignored instead of being used to castigate?


Ray Ubinger
 
Last edited:
Ray Ubinger said:
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.
Click to expand...


I hate to burst your bubble, but chances qare they either don't know or don't care about your accusations, simple as that.

In contrast Loose Change is making its creator's a chunk of money, is widespread, and it completely misrepresents the firemen interviewed by the Naudet brothers, claiming they themselves believe the Towers were brought down by demolition.

Given the FDNY reaction to events post 9/11 it is absolutely clear they do not believe this at all.

These firemen agreed to give interviews to the Naudet brothers, no doubt on condition or good faith. Loose Change is violating that good faith by misrepresenting them.

The Naudet brothers have a responsibility to the firemen, aside from anything else, to have that footage removed. (In fact, were it not removed, the fireman could consider civil action against the Naudet brothers AND Loose Change for false representation)

-Andrew
 
orphia nay:
>>> It would be suprising if he had been within view of the crash and hadn't filmed the footage.
If he was there at the time but did not film the footage, but still went on to make his film of the rescue efforts on that day, you can bet he would still be under Raphael's spotlight, for Raphael would know he had been within view of the crash and would find it suspicious.

Ray Ubinger:
>> 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.


orhpia nay writes:

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

You're welcome. :)

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

No, I'm saying

he filmed people (most from behind, some from front) at the exact moment of the impact, within sight of WTC
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm

AND
he filmed the impact aftermath from the same sidewalk vicinity (proving his first shot was within sight of WTC) but at least a moment later (long thick black smoke cloud present, initial tan-gray stalked mushroom cloud no longer present)
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm

BUT
he FAILED to show us any shot of the IMMEDIATE impact aftermath, which he would have been able to film if he had just tilted up after the first of the above two clips.

I am AGREEING with you that footage taken within sight of WTC at the instant of the 1st Hit, but failing to show the immediate 1st Hit aftermath, qualifies as highly suspicious.


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

Pretty pricey for something I've never heard of. Can you throw in a clip of alleged firefighter Tony Benetatos doing some actual firefighting somewhere in the Naudet movie?


> 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.

Hanlon the NARRATOR says Gedeon was at the firehouse at 8:46. This narration wasn't released until 6 months after the fact, during the 10MAR2002CBS premier. That's plenty of time to get the narrative right, seeing as they all miraculously survived. GEDEON HIMSELF says he walked (why didn't he RIDE??) to WTC from the firehouse at 8:46.

> It doesn't count as evidence of a cover-up if Gédéon walked 300metres while filming local street scenes.

Nor did I say it did. But Gedeon and the narrator say that didn't start happening until after 8:46.


> Ray, you are confusing 'get skeptical' with 'be gullible'.

I show you Tony Benetatos edited in to the Gorumba funeral scene
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/crowd.htm
and I show you the truck passing him having to be mirror-imaged so as to match the direction of the rest of the funeral procession
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm
and you still think the NON-gullible conclusion is that Tony was really there?


Ray Ubinger
 
Last edited:
orphia nay writes:

> I'm not convinced this footage was made at 8:46am.

Assuming you mean the footage
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
here are my supporting points again:

1.
BY HOW THE NAUDETS THEMSELVES SUGGESTIVELY PLACE IT in the 'terror preview montage,' it is immediately after the fireman at Church&Lispenard touches his helmet. Later, in the full version of the Church-Lispenard scene (the Alleged Odor of Alleged Gas), we are shown that that helmet-touch was immediately prior to the 1st Hit impact.
http://tinyurl.com/6zx44 (short but possibly broken)
http://911foreknowledge.com/odorofgas.htm (big)

2. If it been taken before 9/11, it would raise so-far unanswered questions about how that locale still looked so similar on 9/11, down to individually identifiable pieces of rubble strewn next to trash cans with yellow tape tied to them in the middle of the street, as well as the question of what coincidence resulted in them filming a spot that Gedeon admittedly would be the cameraman for sometime between 2nd Hit and 1st Collapse
http://tinyurl.com/dvxft
--not to mention, what would the people have been reacting to if it was pre-S11, and further, why would the Naudets show a non-S11 reaction and let us think it was a reaction on S11 by how they feature it so prominently at the start of their S11-terror preview sequence?

3. If it had been taken between 8:47 and 1st Collapse, it would not have begun the way it does, with NOBODY looking up, with everyone just walking along normally.

4. If it had been taken between 1st Collapse but before Cleanup (days if not weeks later), it would have been all dusty.

5. If it was taken after Cleanup, it would not have still had individually matchable pieces of rubble still strewn next to the same waste cans tied to the same yellow tape out in the same middle of the same busy but still-blocked street.

6. Any excuse that it was a re-enactment (regardless of timing contradictions still in effect from the above logic), would just add more weight to the evidence of general deception by, general LIARHOOD of, the Naudets, as already substantiated by me with several proven moments of them doctoring their own footage, including inserting their subject into scenes he wasn't really at.


> 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.]

It is far from clearly said. When the ST collapsed he seems to be a ways (mile? half mile?) north, filming & walking toward WTC as the panicked crowd streams past him in the other direction. See the SECOND of the TWO clips at
http://911foreknowledge.com/soldier3.htm

When the NT disintegrated his location was either nearby the NT or else already back at the firehouse. It is kind of skipped over, although he definitely is back near the NT after the ST disintegration. See
http://tinyurl.com/jjsd2

Why do you ask?


> [T]he 'Condi Rice lookalike' looks like a man to me.

You're certainly entitled to that opinion, especially at the small scale of the excerpt on a computer page. I'd be fine with calling her "backpack person" until you view it larger when I think you'll agree she's a she. The point is, there are several people suddenly reacting to something above them within sight of the WTC, and the background details are extremely consistent with how that location looked within the next hour that morning (between 2nd Hit and 1st Collapse).


Ray Ubinger
 
Last edited:
Ray Ubinger said:
orphia nay writes:
> I'm not convinced this footage was made at 8:46am.

Assuming you mean the footage
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
here are my supporting points again:

<snip>

3. If it had been taken between 8:47 and 1st Collapse, it would not have begun the way it does, with NOBODY looking up, with everyone just walking along normally.
Click to expand...
Why not?

Not everybody was looking at the burning towers all the time. Besides, you can see the cameraman beginning to pan left in the end of the shot.

My guess is that it shows audience reaction to one of the towers beginning to fall.
 
Chran, thanks, you beat me to it.

It would very difficult to get where you need to be in the event of a major city emergency without looking where you're going.

I count 5 out of 8 people visibly looking up in the same direction within the second or so of footage before it ends, and one other has just turned his head a bit in the same direction.

To add:
"When the first plane hit, Gedeon was at the firehouse. With three other firefighters, he went to the World Trade Center, and, like Jules, was within a block of Tower 1 when it collapsed."
http://www.ambafrance-us.org/culture/tv/programs/naudet911.html
 
Actually, it is very difficult to get anywhere without looking where you're going.

Ray, did you run as a Libertarian candidate and lose the two party election for the North Carolina State Senate District of Durham in 2004 with 9.76% of the votes?
 
Are you the same Ray Ubinger who is quoted as a reference in support of the Hologram Theory?

"The hologram theory says that south tower (WTC2) was not hit by a large Boeing 767-200 (flight UA175) but by a small USAF cruise missile or drone with a large holographic cloak around it that made it look like a flight UA175, i.e. a flying deception."
 
orphia nay said:
Are you the same Ray Ubinger who is quoted as a reference in support of the Hologram Theory?
Click to expand...


:eye-poppi

4. One type of UFOs are orbs. Orbs are round thingies like flying balls. On the morning of 9-11-1 orbs flew over the buildings of the WTC. Researchers believe that the orbs flying over the WTC had something to do with the attacks, such as the use of stealth technology.
Click to expand...

Watch out for the round thingies.

:confused:

-Andrew
 
Ray Ubinger said:
Regarding
911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
I wrote

When else were pedestrians walking along normally, nobody looking up, and then suddenly they whirled their heads up or around to look somewhere new?
Click to expand...

I am writing...
Perhaps some time later when the documentary makers decided to get some people out on a street, and film them all suddenly looking up on cue. Sometimes these people are called 'actors', and even get paid for doing this. Sometimes film makers do this to add filler scenes and the correct atmosphere for points they are trying to make.

Seriously .. Copy, Paste and Delete are your friends; especially when invited to the big party thrown by The Quote Function.
 
The Grammar of film is not slang

So I spent some time at Ray's site. It is one of the most amazing examples of making something out of nothing, and further, just because you don't understand something, does not mean you cannot comment on it authoritatively!

Ray sees mysterious CIA agents, (they wear the secret uniform of the CIA, a white shirt and tie!) firemen carry mysterious devices, there are "soldier-disguised-as-fireman" not to forget" WING-FLAPPING HOLOSHADOW" and lets not forget the cattle prods and the big ol' hypodermic needles!


So, Ray has made his life's work examining the Naudet Bros. film pixel by pixel. But Ray does not understand the simple grammar of film. Editing, sound overlaps, representative shots, are all typical. If someone shot 144 hours of film than Ray seems to think that all 144 hours must be in the film, be in focus at all times, and always be interesting and advancing the story line. Flipping a shot to avoid a jump cut, or make screen direction is fine - (see the funeral tangent) you are not altering the facts, just making the transition - its not like flipping a shot of plane 2 and its direction of travel so as to represent it as plane 1.

These are things learned by any first year film student. The bright ones get it. What you are looking at is not raw, unedited footage, in literal order, subject to cross examination, presented as evidence in a capital case. It is a collection of images and sounds put together to represent what happened that day, utilizing the images they had to illustrate the event.

Put another way, Ray has spent hours and hours, examining and exploring, and has no clue as to what he is looking at, or the context that it belongs in. He has made a website with moving images, written text to go along with it, yet it is still meaningless, because most of it is just wrong.

You can spend hours seeing faces in clouds, but they are still just clouds -- they aren't faces. You can grasp a lot of straws, and still not come away with anything besides a handful of straw. Lots of fiber, not much nutrition here.
 
Ray,

Your whole theory relies on the idea that Church St. at Murray St. was closed to traffic before 8:46 a.m. on 9/11.

Prove it.

When you prove that, know where you'll be?

One step closer to not being a despicable creep.

Won't that feel good?
 
Closure of Church St. somewhere south of Murray St. during 1st Hit

Gravy writes:

> Your whole theory relies on the idea that Church St. at Murray St. was closed to traffic before 8:46 a.m. on 9/11. Prove it.

You yourself insisted that traffic had to have been blocked in the clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
because of the rubble and trash cans and yellow tape and pedestrians all out in the middle of the street, didn't you? So, re-read my proof that the location of that clip is Church-Murray, and re-read my proof that the timing of that clip is 8:46 a.m. on 9/11, and if you find either of those proofs flawed, say why.


Ray Ubinger
 
Ray Ubinger said:
Gravy writes:

> Your whole theory relies on the idea that Church St. at Murray St. was closed to traffic before 8:46 a.m. on 9/11. Prove it.

You yourself insisted that traffic had to have been blocked in the clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
because of the rubble and trash cans and yellow tape and pedestrians all out in the middle of the street, didn't you? So, re-read my proof that the location of that clip is Church-Murray, and re-read my proof that the timing of that clip is 8:46 a.m. on 9/11, and if you find either of those proofs flawed, say why.


Ray Ubinger
Click to expand...
No, Ray, If you had paid any attention you would know that I do not agree with you that the clip in question was taken when the first plane hit.

Stop your creepy whining and prove that Church Street was closed to traffic at 8:46 a.m. on 9/11/01.

Prove it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom