Leslie Raphael's (Public) Conveniences

[60hzxtl]

Ray Ubinger discovers editing and mistakes it for conspiracy.

 

[gumboot]

Just for everyone's info...

IMDB credits three cinematographers on this documentary...

-Andrew

 

[60hzxtl]

Just for everyone's info...

IMDB credits three cinematographers on this documentary...

-Andrew

And in no way, great as it is, is imbd infallible, or comprehensive - the info is gathered by bucket brigade.

There may well have been more shooters not credited as well-

(e.g. I am listed 6 times in imdb - but two of the films I did not work on at all, and there is one project I produced and directed, and only the writer is credited! Imagine! )

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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

I have debated my share of believers in alternate theories (usually, but not always, called Conspiracy Theories). You seem to fit the bill, as evidenced by your contributions to this thread. Hence, you are "another one."

As to my second two-part question, it was intended to determine if you had real-world (as opposed to second-hand) experience looking at the towers.

To that point, any suggestion (by you, Leslie Rapael, or others) that there was something extraordinarily suspicious about filmmakers capturing the first hit on the north tower is rather silly. I'll explain:

• The Twin Towers were so tall that their upper portions were quite easily visible to anyone at street level in Manhattan (and many surrounding points), unless the pedestrian's view was obstructed by nearby-to-the-viewer's-vantage-point buildings
• Because of the factors above, the Twins were often used to provide casual geographic reckoning for those traveling the city on foot, and sometimes by those in a motor vehicle
• The WTC was situated very near the south tip/end of the relatively narrow Manhattan island, meaning their north faces were what was primarily seen when obvserving them in the skyline
• NYC is the media communications capital of the world, meaning that at any time, day or night, there are people -- both professional and amateur -- engaged in work with still and motion cameras. In addition, there is a thriving professional film and television industry in NYC, often working outdoors. Too, there are at least two film schools, with students engaged in their projects, again, often outdoors
• There exists these days no small number of personal hand-held video cameras, cell-phone cameras, and digital still cameras. These are utilized quite regularly by tourists the world over, NYC of course being a major tourist destination
• The morning of September 11, 2001 was clear, sunny, and mild
• The sound of a jet traveling north to south along the western, Hudson River shore of the island would be striking, both due to its low-altitude proximity (volume) and uniqueness in the city's day-to-day cacaphony

A filmmaking team in NYC was/is not unusual. Being drawn to the roar of a low passing jet was/is not unusual. Being situated outdoors on Manhattan Island so that when looking up, one saw the upper north face of the Twin Towers was not unusual. Reacting to an unusual event in action by swinging one's camera to record that action is not unusual.

So what is unusual? I'm guessing you know my answer to this.

 

[Ray Ubinger]

orphia nay writes:

> I have the Naudet's lawyers' letter saved to pc.

Good for you. Can anyone still find it on the Web?

> While it does say "they shot 140 hours of video footage of that fateful day"

Thank you, that's what I said it said.

> it also says their footage was the only known film of the first plane strike.

I don't expect "Pavel Hlava" to object -- he was part of the same Naudet-FDNY propaganda team. And by the way he too had traffic blocked for his filming (empty lane over to his right during an otherwise bumper-to-bumper situation) -- just like Jules and Gedeon did.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pavel

> How many cameramen are listed in the film's credits, Ray?

Possibly several, unless I'm just remembering the "additional footage" credits, like for the airborne harbor shot of the 1st Collapse. My dvd is currently loaned out (and the online version is real clunky for me; fast-forward & rewind don't work; just play and pause and start all over).

No cameramen but Jules and Gedeon and Hanlon (who claims "I was off that day") receive any mention whatsoever in the narrative. They give no explanation for how they got two different shots of Mr. Backofhead stabbing his right arm toward where Father Judge was.
http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm
Or should we assume the stabbing was a repeated motion?

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


Ray Ubinger

 

[Gravy]

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


Ray Ubinger

Prove that the streeet was closed at 8:46, creep.
If you can't do that, your theory fails.
So stop whining and do it.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Go, on Ray, prove the street was closed at the time of the first hit. AND that there was no debris at that time. AND that Gedeon wasn't at the firehouse. AND that anyone else was filming other than the two brothers. AND that they had footage of the first hit other than Jules' footage. AND that the Naudets were told to be wherever they were at whatever time. AND by whom they were told to be there. AND that you're not a creep.

> My guess is that it shows audience reaction to one of the towers beginning to fall.

No, because then it would have to be after the pre-1st-Collapse (no Dust yet) shots of the same street location as here:

http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/constructiondebris.htm

(Or for quicker comparison use this pair of still screens:
http://tinyurl.com/dvxft
)

The bravenewworld clip has to be earlier, by the lighting. Proof:

In both clips, the windows of the building (Emigrants Savings Bank) at the SW corner of Church-Murray, are casting a row of squarish light blobs down onto the middle of Church Street. This is westward morning sunlight reflected back eastward.

The row of squarish light blobs is FARTHER east in the EARLIER clip when the sun is LOWER and the angle of reflection more ACUTE:
http://911foreknowldge.com/bravenewworld.htm
(EARLIER)

The row of squarish light blobs is LESS easterly, farther WEST, in the LATER clips when the sun is HIGHER and the angle of reflection more OBLIQUE:
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/constructiondebris.htm
(LATER)

Which light blobs? You mean the dust?

(BTW, the Emigrant Savings bank is next door to that building.)

 

[gumboot]

I have taken a look at Ray's pics of the airliner's main undercarriage. I noticed it was surrounded by yellow tape.

It appears to be the same tape as appears in the footage on the street, depicting people's reaction to the "first hit". One of these pieces of footage even has a guy with a radio in blue uniform with "FBI" all over it.

The yellow "construction" tape in the background all those street shots is identical in each.

I copied the pic of the undercarriage to my hard drive and opened it in photoshop. The text on the yellow tape was backwards and upside down, but after double-flipping it it was easy to read - "POLICE LINE DO NOT CROSS"

In other words?

The video supposedly taken by the second Naudet Brother of people reacting to the first hit is not what Ray claims it is.

It is, as I suspected, footage taken post-9/11. Debris from the attacks litters the road and the area has been fenced off by yellow police tape. FBI agents appear on the perimeter. There is no traffic because the area has been sealed off from traffic.

No mystery there.

-Andrew

By the way Ray, the reason the undercarriage wasn't "singed" was because it was propelled through the building at 500 mph encased safely inside the main undercarriage housing. I'd be surprised if anything will catch alight when propelled through a fire-balling cloud of kerosene at 500mph, certainly the rubber of an aircraft tyre, encased in an undercarriage hoursing, will not catch fire.

 

[chillzero]

Good grief.

PLEASE for goodness' sake - PLEASE use the £$%$$%$% QUOTE FUNCTION !!!! Click the button, copy any quotes you need to add from the original post, and surround them with quote tags. It's really very simple.

Regarding
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
I wrote

>> When else [besides 8:46 a.m. on 9/11] were pedestrians walking along normally, nobody looking up, and then suddenly they whirled their heads up or around to look somewhere new?


chillzero writes:

> 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.

No, because that part of that street stopped looking like that at 10:00 a.m. on 9/11, when the Dust coated it.

http://tinyurl.com/dvxft
(top: Church-Murray during 1st Hit, from Naudet movie
bottom: same location between 2nd Hit and 1st Collapse, also from Naudet movie)

http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/constructiondebris.htm
(two Naudet vid clips of same intersection pre-1st-Collapse)

http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/blockwalk.htm
(another Naudet vid clip of same intersection, plus Tim Canale archive footage of same intersection post-1st-Collapse)

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


By the time cleanup occurred days or weeks if not months later (and remember the movie was already broadcast by the 6-month anniversary), the rubble and trash cans and yellow tape all out in the middle of street would have been gone. They would not clean the dust off the street and then replace the rubble back onto the street.

So, you don't when cleanup occurred then? Perhaps they got the shots the next day. You can't really dispute this without any facts to back you up.

You can very easily prove your case here; by a few simple facts:
On 9/11, before the hits, was this particular street blocked for traffic for any particular reason? If not, then it is pretty obvious the shot comes from a different day, when the road WAS blocked - emm.. perhaps after the day's events.
How quickly was cleanup achieved? Did the dust perhaps blow away on it's own? Was some rubble left remaining at a time, within 6 months, when the film crew could have gone for their shots? Perhaps the rubble was not from the event, but from some aftermath work - after the cleanup.

> Sometimes these people are called 'actors', and even get paid for doing this.

Re-enactments that are put into a DOCUMENTARY without being CALLED re-enactments are called LIES.


Ray Ubinger

It happens. This has been explained to you several times. Get over it.

 

[Gravy]

PLEASE You can very easily prove your case here; by a few simple facts:
On 9/11, before the hits, was this particular street blocked for traffic for any particular reason? If not, then it is pretty obvious the shot comes from a different day, when the road WAS blocked - emm.. perhaps after the day's events.

The shot is certainly from 9/11, because after the towers and WTC 7 came down that area was completely covered in heavy dust and debris.

A large part of an engine from flight 175 landed at Church & Murray St, and police put warning tape around it. So it's safe to assume that the street was blocked for a good deal of the time between when the planes hit and when the towers came down. Mr. Ubinger simply needs to show that the road was blocked at the time flight 11 hit. Then he will have taken one small step away from creepdom.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

 

[chillzero]

The shot is certainly from 9/11, because after the towers and WTC 7 came down that area was completely covered in heavy dust and debris.

A large part of an engine from flight 175 landed at Church & Murray St, and police put warning tape around it. So it's safe to assume that the street was blocked for a good deal of the time between when the planes hit and when the towers came down. Mr. Ubinger simply needs to show that the road was blocked at the time flight 11 hit. Then he will have taken one small step away from creepdom.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

I agree.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

PLEASE for goodness' sake - PLEASE use the £$%$$%$% QUOTE FUNCTION !!!! Click the button, copy any quotes you need to add from the original post, and surround them with quote tags. It's really very simple.

I agree, for what it's worth. Not endeavoring to communicate in a manner easily accessible to the recipient of one's thoughts is very close to inconsiderate, if not rude.

 

[chran]

Regarding the timing of the clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
I wrote:
>> 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.

chran writes:
> Why not?

"It was like the whole world stopped; everyone was just looking up." -- fireman Jamal Braithwaite in the Naudet movie, about his ride to WTC-1 in response to the 1st Hit

It's a similie! It's used to describe something, not indicate that that's how it was.

http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/2006/05/911-train-conspiracy.html

> Not everybody was looking at the burning towers all the time.

Maybe not quite everybody, but certainly somebody was.

Uh, right. But you really aren't seriously going to claim that President Bush commited mass murder, because some people weren't looking up?

> My guess is that it shows audience reaction to one of the towers beginning to fall.

No, because then it would have to be after the pre-1st-Collapse (no Dust yet) shots of the same street location as here:

http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/constructiondebris.htm

(Or for quicker comparison use this pair of still screens:
http://tinyurl.com/dvxft

What does that show? A part of a street has been blocked off, because there's some rubble in the street. Perfectly consistent with my guess that traffic is being diverted away from the two burning towers and that the South tower is beginning to fall when the clip starts.

 

[gumboot]

My second guess was going to be that the footage was taken post-hit but pre-collapse.

Can we get some confirmation on how quickly the aircraft debris was taped-off?

Also, I understand that the dust was hosed down to stop it spreading. Has the actual location for the claimed "First hit" footage been confirmed? If so, can we confirm the extent of debris at that location?

According to FEMA's maps the significant pieces of aircraft debris landed well outside the significant areas of building collapse debris.

Can we get confirmations on any of this info?

-Andrew

 

[Gravy]

My second guess was going to be that the footage was taken post-hit but pre-collapse.

Can we get some confirmation on how quickly the aircraft debris was taped-off?

I'm sure Ray is working on that.

Also, I understand that the dust was hosed down to stop it spreading. Has the actual location for the claimed "First hit" footage been confirmed? If so, can we confirm the extent of debris at that location?

According to FEMA's maps the significant pieces of aircraft debris landed well outside the significant areas of building collapse debris.

Can we get confirmations on any of this info?

I don't know how much was hosed down, or when. All of lower Manhattan was covered with dust. The "first hit" footage was shot at Church & Lispenard, 14 blocks from the WTC. AFAIK, Church & Murray, 3 blocks north of the WTC complex (well, about 5 blocks from #2 WTC), was the farthest point reached by aircraft debris.

 

[gumboot]

The "first hit" footage was shot at Church & Lispenard, 14 blocks from the WTC. AFAIK, Church & Murray, 3 blocks north of the WTC complex (well, about 5 blocks from #2 WTC), was the farthest point reached by aircraft debris.

Sorry, I was meaning Ray's "supposed" first hit reaction footage taken by the other brother. I understood it was taken at Church and Murray, where the engine of UA175 was found.

According to FEMA's reports this is well outside the building debris area, meaning it would only have received a coating of dust.

Which to me leads to two proposals OTHER than Ray's:

1) The footage was taken after UA175 had hit, and after the engine had been taped off, but before the buildings collapsed
2) The footage was taken after both buildings had collapsed, perhaps on a following day, and the present dust is either not noticable, or has been hosed away

Either of these seem highly plausible to me. I really need to see the doco to make any informed conclusions about the footage, but I'm having trouble tracking it down here.

-Andrew

 

[Orphia Nay]

I'm leaning towards the bravenewworld footage to be Gedeon's at the time of the second collapse.

In this BBC interview he says he was at the firehouse both at the time of the first hit (8:46am), and also when he saw the first collapse (9:59am):

It was a total nightmare because I was back at the firehouse
watching the television inside the firehouse, the first tower collapsing, live, like most of the world saw it live, and I knew that Jules was there.

Then Gedeon gets a lift down there in a firetruck with some firemen who'd come in from home. He says he saw the second tower collapse:

I remember looking up like that and it’s like everything went in
slow motion – I saw the tower collapsing. I just, without thinking, jumped into a fire truck that was behind me. I remember an FBI agent jumped also in it.

In the bravenewworld clip, clip#1, and the two clips taken near Church & Murray, clips #2 & 3, you can see he is walking up Church towards Murray, and he turns as an FBI agent walks past (clip#3 (and a man starts to point at what I believe is the dust cloud coming)).
I would guess that the firetruck was behind him before he started walking in clip#1.

Clip #1 shows more people to the right already looking up at the towers than in the bravenewworld2 footage. That footage with its dubbed-in sound is misleading. The people looking up are probably just checking on the building as it burns.


This account gives us some idea of the situation on Church Street just before the first collapse:

While standing on the sidewalk opposite 250 Broadway in which some of our important offices are located, I was told that the engine of the crashed plane was lying at the intersection of Murray and Church Streets. I walked towards that spot to see the engine. When I reached there I saw the engine and other plane parts scattered around. I looked at 90 Church St. from where I stood to see whether there was any damage to my office building. I did not see any damage to my office building but to my surprise I did see some damage to 100 Church St. I could also see from there that the Towers were on fire and smoke was billowing. At the repeated orders of police personnel, I, along with others, walked back towards 250 Broadway and entered its lobby for any further information. The security told me that the office had also evacuated. Immediately, I got out and stood with others at the corner in front of the Music World Building. From there we also had the full view of the burning Towers.

Minutes later, as everyone was watching, I saw the WTC Two coming down. As the Tower collapsed, the thick smoke started spreading around at an unimaginable speed. At that time everybody started to run. I also ran with the crowd towards the Brooklyn Bridge.

And another account:

9:40 a.m.: In a state of disbelief, I start walking to the east to try to see what happened at the South Tower.

9:53 a.m.: I reach Church St. and begin to walk south. I can see the smoke pouring out of the South Tower, and there are large pieces of metal falling from the building superstructure.

9:58 a.m.: As I walk south on Church St., the South Tower begins to collapse. It's immediately apparent that a cloud of dust and debris is going to travel quickly right up Church St. The crowd moves north in unison. Sensing that I can't outrun the dust cloud, I duck into a side street, and the cloud rolls past. The mood of the crowd changes distinctly from disbelief to terror. I attempt to head back toward our office to locate our staff and try to determine if everyone is okay.

10:10 a.m.: I'm blocked by police barricades, about half a block north of our office [the New York City GIS Utility at 75 Park Place (one block north of the World Trade Center complex)], and look around for co-workers. I find colleagues from other organizations, but none from the GIS Utility. I continue walking on Greenwich, looking for co-workers.

I'm thinking there would have been some dust and debris after the plane hits and the first collapse, but there would have been much more after the second collapse which would spread its own debris and dust, plus the dust of the first collapse.

 

[Gravy]

Sorry, I was meaning Ray's "supposed" first hit reaction footage taken by the other brother. I understood it was taken at Church and Murray, where the engine of UA175 was found.

According to FEMA's reports this is well outside the building debris area, meaning it would only have received a coating of dust.

Which to me leads to two proposals OTHER than Ray's:

1) The footage was taken after UA175 had hit, and after the engine had been taped off, but before the buildings collapsed
2) The footage was taken after both buildings had collapsed, perhaps on a following day, and the present dust is either not noticable, or has been hosed away

Either of these seem highly plausible to me. I really need to see the doco to make any informed conclusions about the footage, but I'm having trouble tracking it down here.

-Andrew

The first option is the only one that makes sense to me. After the buildings collapsed, the area didn't look the same for many months. The "coating of dust" reached for miles. Three blocks away, it heavily covered everything, and was accompanied by millions of pounds of paper and other small debris. The FEMA damage diagram only refers to pieces of the building structures that were ejected.

 

[gumboot]

The first option is the only one that makes sense to me. After the buildings collapsed, the area didn't look the same for many months. The "coating of dust" reached for miles. Three blocks away, it heavily covered everything, and was accompanied by millions of pounds of paper and other small debris. The FEMA damage diagram only refers to pieces of the building structures that were ejected.

Thanks for clarifying.

-Andrew

 

[Gravy]

Here's a photo that shows what we're talking about. The north tower collapse is underway. The area is already covered with dust from the south tower. Of course, WTC 7 top right corner) added to that later in the day. What a mess.

edit: fixed photo