Leslie Raphael's (Public) Conveniences

[Orphia Nay]

Gravy writes:
...
> Other friends of mine saw that plane hit from their office windows. Are they lying?

Is the Naudet camera lying?? Do you see anything sized or shaped like a 767 in those frames (taken from a known distance of only 7/10ths of a mile)? Are people at a skeptic's forum supposed to give more weight to hearsay than to photos?

Answer the question. Are they lying?

Are we supposed to give more weight to distortions of out-of-focus images or trusted eyewitness testimonies and forensic evidence?

 

[Orphia Nay]

Andrew Gumboot writes:

> IMDB credits three cinematographers on this documentary.

Yes, and I think the movie credits list a few additional cameraman (never mentioned in the narrative), or maybe it's just additional S11 FOOTAGE like Camera Planet or whoever got the shots like the ones from the air and out over the harbor.

WHOEVER shot
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
it is EXCLUSIVE to the Naudet film, appearing nowhere else, and I stand by my argument that it shows pedestrian reaction within sight of WTC (at Church-Murray) at the instant of the first hit.


Ray Ubinger

You don't seem to understand that even if you can prove that that footage is of reactions to the first hit, you still have no evidence of a government cover-up, or of the Naudets' involvement in it.
You can't prove that Gedeon filmed that footage - you just admitted others could have done so. You came in here with your extraordinary claims - the burden of proof is on you to prove that the road was closed at 8:46am, that there was debris in the street, that Gedeon filmed that footage and lied about it, and that's just for starters.

 

[gumboot]

I have to say the Naudet conspiracy line is by far my favourite. While the "government did it" and "concrete core" ones achieve a certain high rating on the insanity meter, they tended to plateau very quickly and maintain a constant level.

In comparison the Naudet conspiracy just gets better at every turn. Apparantly now an element of the overall plot was for the firemen to take a pistol and a syringe into the WTC for the purpose of murdering the fire department chaplain...

Mr Ubinger, before I lose all respect for you, please clarify. Do you honestly believe this is even remotely logical and reasonable?

-Andrew

 

[Ray Ubinger]

> 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/c...tiondebris.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/c...tiondebris.htm
(LATER)

orphia nay writes:

> Which light blobs? You mean the dust?

No I don't mean the dust. I mean the row of four or more squarish blobs of LIGHT running down the middle of Church Street, in both the bravenewworld clip and the later clips taken of the same part of that street:

http://tinyurl.com/dvxft

In the top shot (taken at 8:46, I claim), the light blobs are farther away from (more east than) the trash can in the middle of the street.

In the bottom shot (post-2nd-Hit, pre-1st-Collapse), the light blobs have moved more westward, CLOSER to that same trash can.

I submit this MOVING row of squarish blobs of light must be reflections of westward morning sunlight back eastward, reflected by the windows of the building (Emigrant Savings Bank) on the SW corner of Church-Murray.

When the row of squarish blobs of light is farther east, the time is earlier, because the morning sun is lower and the angle of reflection is more acute.

When the row of squarish blobs of light is farther west, the time is later, because the morning sun is higher and the angle of reflection is less acute.

Now, since there's no dust yet in the second of the two screenshots
http://tinyurl.com/dvxft
it follows that the second shot is pre-1st-Collapse.

But, the first shot is earlier than the second shot, by the position of the row of window reflections into the middle of the street.

Therefore, I was saying, you are mistaken to conjecture that the first shot (bravenewworld) could have been a reaction to the 1st Collapse. Because, there is provably later footage, of the exact same location, in which the 1st Collapse dust still isn't present.


> Go, on Ray, prove the street was closed at the time of the first hit.

This request is just a distraction. Nobody denies that the street was blocked during the filming of the bravenewworld clip. So the request to prove the street blocked during the 1st Hit just amounts to another way to request I prove that the bravenewworld clip was shot during the first hit. That request, I have been forthrightly addressing for a couple weeks now.

> AND that there was no debris at that time.

I don't get this request. You're saying YOU think maybe the Church-Murray debris that was depicted as plane parts from the 2nd Hit, was already visible at 8:46?? Even I don't think that. I don't think the perps were that dumb. I think they kept the alleged plane debris hidden among all that sidewalk scaffolding, and then unveiled it on cue during the distraction-panic of the 2nd Hit. (I hold that neither Tower was hit by a plane.)

I do say this much, though: The same rubble and yellow caution tape and sidewalk scaffolding visible when the alleged 2nd Hit plane parts showed up, are visible in the background of the bravenewworld clip.

> AND that Gedeon wasn't at the firehouse.

I can't prove that, at least not yet, but the only evidence that he was there is the word of the lying Naudet team itself. (Liars because they dubbed audio from one TV clip onto video from another, they inserted Tony into scenes he wasn't at, and they cut out a lot of frames from their 2nd Hit shot. All previously sourced by me, but I'll repost the links on request.)

The bravenewworld clip had to be shot by someone, and Gedeon is at least the obvious best guess, because the location exactly matches ADMITTED Gedeon footage from elsewhere in the movie. He is specifically depicted as going down and up Church Street three times that morning.

If Gedeon was at the firehouse at 8:46 as claimed, then the foreknowledge-enabled clip of pedestrian reaction at 8:46 would have to have been shot by someone else on the Naudet-FDNY team, like James Hanlon who claims, "I was off that day." Personally, though, I suspect Hanlon was playing the part of "Pavel Hlava" at 8:46, and the so-called Cheney 2nd Hit cameraman at 9:03, because the camera for both those shots exhibits similar, glaring problems with green and purple color spikes.
Comapre
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pavel
http://911foreknowledge.com/setup.htm

> AND that anyone else was filming other than the two brothers.

I admit additional cameramen are credited. Hanlon calls Hanlon himself a third cameraman, at least during when they're allegedly filming Tony's boot camp. I figure this is to be able to explain who later shot the clip of the reunited Jules AND Gedeon, hugging each other.

> AND that they had footage of the first hit other than Jules' footage.

Again, "Pavel Hlava," the alleged Czech immigrant (related to the glass blower with the same name, who had recently died?) -- who for some reason was riding with the FDNY from Brookly toward Manhattan at 8:46.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pavel

> AND that the Naudets were told to be wherever they were at whatever time. AND by whom they were told to be there.

Those would be helpful to my proof but they are not necessary. If my proof holds water that the bravenewworld clip is of pedestrian reaction at the instant of the 1st Hit, then the Naudets ought to explain how they managed to get it.

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

Next door to what building? I agree your link shows the ESB. I say that is the same as the building in the left foreground of
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
and that it is the same as the building on the right at the END of the pre-2nd-Hit admitted Gedeon Naudet clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm
All three are the ESB.


Ray Ubinger
I apologize to all who have brought it up, that my use of the Quote button, which I'm doing my best with, is still hampered by when I need to quote more than one level back in the conversation. I asked for help on this point but didn't see any answers.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Ray Ubinger
I apologize to all who have brought it up, that my use of the Quote button, which I'm doing my best with, is still hampered by when I need to quote more than one level back in the conversation. I asked for help on this point but didn't see any answers.

Just do this when you want to quote. Type {quote} in front of the text, and {/quote}at the end of the text, except replace the {}'s with []'s.

ETA: you can quote a specific individual by starting the quoted text with

, for example or

.

 

[Ray Ubinger]

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

I think the things at Church-Murray that were portrayed as 2nd Hit plane parts, were planted to support the story that real planes were used. I think these to-be-planted "plane parts" were kept out of sight, until the 2nd Hit, by construction scaffolding, possibly tarps directly over the parts, and that people were kept back from these things by yellow caution tape tied well out into the street already at 8:46 (as visible in the bravenewworld clip, i.e., the one Church-Murray clip which I claim was shot at 8:46). It think the 2nd Hit was the cue for the (possible) tarps to be removed and/or for rolling out the "plane parts," into view, from behind/underneath the (definite) scaffolding.

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.

No, there is no "FBI" visible in the ONE Church-Murray clip which I contend was taken at 8:46:
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm

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

Yep. So if you don't think bravenewworld was taken at 8:46, then I guess you must think that the yellow tape only went up after the 2nd Hit ... or else you think 2nd Hit "plane parts" somehow managed to land exactly in areas which had already been taped off?

The video supposedly taken by the second Naudet Brother of people reacting to the first hit is [...] as I suspected, footage taken post-9/11.

Sorry, no way, because that part of that street never looked that way again after the dust of the 1st Collapse.

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.

Decent conjecturing with what you were going on, but you need to back up and realize how close this place was to the DUST that COATED downtown for a LONG time. AND again please note that there is NO "FBI" in the ONLY Church-Murray clip that I say was taken at 8:46.


Ray Ubinger

 

[Ray Ubinger]

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.

I admit taking it as common knowledge that the dust at Church-Murray (only two intersections from one of the corners of the WTC mega-block) was long lasting. I defy you to name any S11 researcher who disagrees.

More to the point, though: No matter how soon cleanup started, they still would not have put cleaned-up rubble pieces and a cleaned-up trashcan and cleaned-up yellow caution tape all back out exactly as they were on 9/11.

Did the dust perhaps blow away on it's own?

It was inches thick there!
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/bigjunk.htm
2/3 down the page

Was some rubble left remaining at a time, within 6 months, when the film crew could have gone for their shots?

You mean rubble AND trashcan out in middle of blocked street, AND yellow tape tied to that trash can out in middle of blocked street, AND sidewalk scaffolding at that same location, ALL still UNdisturbed since 9/11 BUT also cleansed of all the dust?

Perhaps the rubble was not from the event, but from some aftermath work - after the cleanup.

No, because the rubble is visible in various shots of that same location, all of which except bravenewworld are ADMITTEDLY taken on 9/11 by Gedeon Naudet. For instance the second of the two screenshots at
http://tinyurl.com/dvxft


Ray Ubinger

 

[Ray Ubinger]

Referring to
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
Gravy informs 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.

Thank you. Chillzero was apparently just innocently ignorant of that common knowledge.

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.

No one denies that the bravenewworld clip is of a blocked Church Street just south of Murray. My argument that the time of that shot was 8:46, is part of the whole ongoing discussion. I have not ignored the question. It is an obviously fair question and I have said a lot in answer to it.


Ray Ubinger

 

[Gravy]

Still here Ray, and still unable to providea shred of proof for your sick accusations?

Be a man and show us all that Church & Murray was closed at 8:46 on 9/11. It's your claim to prove, not ours.

You've been asked to do this many times.

So stop whining and do it.

Then you will have taken one small step away from despicable creepdom. Won't it feel nice?

 

[Ray Ubinger]

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.

The fact that the bravenewworld clip starts with NOBODY (out of about a dozen people) looking up, marks it as qualitatively different from undisputed POST-1st-Hit shots, like

http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location1.htm
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location2.htm
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location3.htm
AND ESPECIALLY
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm
WHICH WAS TAKEN WITHIN SEVERAL FEET OF WHERE THE BRAVENEWWORLD CLIP WAS TAKEN.

Observe how much more crowded the street is in the location4 clip than in the bravenewworld clip, and how practically everybody is standing still and staring upward in the location4 clip, totally unlike the start of the bravenewworld clip.

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

Ray:
>> Maybe not quite everybody, but certainly somebody was.

chran:
> Uh, right.

Right indeed. By contrast, the bravenewworld clip starts with NOBODY looking up, with everyone just walking along normally.

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

My claim here is that because NOBODY was looking up at the START of the bravenewworld clip, because EVERYONE was just walking along normally, the bravenewworld clip was not taken between 1st Hit and 2nd Hit.

If you disagree, please substantiate your viewpoint by posting any undisputed post-1st Hit, pre-1st-Collapse shot of people within sight of WTC just walking along normally, nobody standing still, nobody looking up, nobody running away.


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

me
>> 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/c...tiondebris.htm

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

chran
> What does that show?

I have detailed this in an earlier post this evening in response to orphia nay. It has to do with the moving row of squarish blobs of light in the middle of Church Street. The changing position of those light blobs establishes that the bravenewworld clip was shot BEFORE OTHER footage of the SAME location which STILL wasn't Dusted yet. This in turn establishes that bravenewworld can not be a reaction at the instant of the 1st Collapse.


Ray Ubinger

 

[Ray Ubinger]

Be a man and show us all that Church & Murray was closed at 8:46 on 9/11.

No one disputes that the bravenewworld clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
is of a blocked Church Street shortly south of Murray. So you are merely telling me to repeat my proof that that clip was shot at 8:46.

Be a man and admit that you yourself personally insisted that the bravenewworld clip is a clip of a blocked street.

Be a man and admit that the conclusion 'Church-Murray Was Blocked At 8:46' would follow directly from a proof that 'Bravenewworld Was Shot At 8:46.'

Be a man and admit that I have already been addressing for weeks now the question of the timing of the bravenewworld clip.


Y'all keep pretending some part of my argument goes, "Church-Murray was blocked at 8:46, THEREFORE..." No part of my argument actually goes like that. The blocking of Church-Murray at 8:46, apparently for greater ease in filming the obscure Naudet 1st Hit Pedestrian Reaction shot, is just an INCIDENTAL aspect of the scenario I'm putting forth. They MIGHT have tried filming that reaction WITHOUT blocking the street, but the undisputed fact turns out to be that the clip that I claim is 8:46 pedestrian reaction, is a clip of a blocked street. That much is self-evident by visual inspection.

I could go on about how the Church-Murray blocking connects to the blocking of Church-LISPENARD, for the FAMOUS Naudet 1st Hit IMPACT shot, and that both of those street blockings in turn connect to the blocking of the lane to the right of "Pavel Hlava" to enable HIS unobstructed 1st Hit shot, but that would just be ... gravy.

Ray Ubinger

 

[Gravy]

Be a man and stop whining. Prove that Church & Murray was closed at 8:46.

How many times do you have to be told that your beliefs don't matter? Why do you continue to post here without any evidence to back your claims?

Despicable.

 

[Ray Ubinger]

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

You mean post-2nd-Hit and pre-1st-Collapse? What then would the suddenly-reacting pedestrians be suddenly reacting to?

Also, I understand that the dust was hosed down to stop it spreading.

So what if it was?

Has the actual location for the claimed "First hit" footage been confirmed?

I believe Gravy himself posted a recent photo, taken by himself, which corroborates that the clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
was shot along the east gutter of Church Street, shortly south of Murray Street, looking north and west, toward the west half of the Church-Murray intersection.

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

Cite, please? Thank you.


Ray Ubinger

 

[Ray Ubinger]

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

I'm sure Ray is working on that.

Yellow tape at the Church-Murray intersection (which is associated with alleged airplane debris from the 2nd Hit), is visible in the background of the clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm

If you think that that yellow tape didn't get put up until after the 2nd Hit, then what do you think the pedestrians in that clip are reacting to?

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?

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.

Church-Lispenard is not the "claimed 'First hit' footage" Andrew was referring to. Church-Lispenard is UNDISPUTED 1st Hit footage. Andrew was referring to the bravenewworld footage, claimed (by me) to have been shot at 8:46.


Ray Ubinger

 

[Gravy]

Ray Ubinger, why are you posting here? People think you're a vicious idiot who has no evidence for his outrageous claims. You don't seem to care about that.

So what's your point, Ray Ubinger? What do you get out of continuing to present to your beliefs to people who are asking for evidence?

Just trolling then?

 

[Ray Ubinger]

Prove that Church & Murray was closed at 8:46.

See my proof that the bravenewworld clip (of an undisputedly closed Church & Murray) was shot at 8:46.


Ray Ubinger

 

[kevin]

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

Cite, please? Thank you.

Ray Ubinger

Figure 1-4 of FEMA report 403: engine at Church and Murray, landing gear at 45 park place, landing gear at rector and west. Figure 1-7 maps building debris. furthest away appears to be barclay to the northeast, and albany to the southwest.

 

[Ray Ubinger]

[T]wo proposals OTHER than Ray's:

1) The [bravenewworld] footage was taken after UA175 had hit, and after the engine had been taped off, but before the buildings collapsed

Then what were the suddenly-reacting pedestrians suddenly reacting to?

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

I think even Gravy admits that intersection was blanketed in thick dust. This is really not disputable. It was just two blocks from Church-Vesey, which was the NE corner of the WTC megablock. The thickness and pervasiveness of the dust are visible in the Rick Leventhal interviews which also just happened to take place at the exact same intersection.

Spraying water on the Church-Murray dust could not both make all the dust disappear AND leave individually identifiable pieces of rubble in exactly the same position they were in during ADMITTED Gedeon Naudet footage of Church-Murray, from later in the movie than the disputed bravenewworld shot.


Ray Ubinger

 

[Gravy]

Then what were the suddenly-reacting pedestrians suddenly reacting to?

The problem is, Ray, that YOU are the only one here who thinks that those people are suddenly reacting to anything, and you simply ignore all the people in the video who aren't reacting at all. Why are you doing this?

There is NOTHING in that video that indicates anything but a few people turning to look at a disaster that has already happened.

How many times do you have to be told that your beliefs are not evidence?

Your behavior is extremely irrational. Please seek professional help.

 

[gumboot]

orphia nay writes:

> Which light blobs? You mean the dust?

No I don't mean the dust. I mean the row of four or more squarish blobs of LIGHT running down the middle of Church Street, in both the bravenewworld clip and the later clips taken of the same part of that street:

Oh dear Ray. You need to stop hunting for communists under your bed. They are not "squarish blobs of light". They are patches of dust Ray. Not only are they in the same position in each shot, but their relative surface luminesence hasn't changed in each shot to reflect the change in light levels. You can assert all you want, but they are not what you think they are, and they do not move.

Lastly, reflected windows do not look like that, Ray. Glass skyscrapers act like giant mirrors. They slightly diffuse the light and you get great pools of light dozens of yards long, not neat little squares the size of a window.

I think they kept the alleged plane debris hidden among all that sidewalk scaffolding, and then unveiled it on cue during the distraction-panic of the 2nd Hit. (I hold that neither Tower was hit by a plane.)

You don't think maybe people gathered around might have noticed an airline jet turbine smashing into the ground at 500 MPH, followed by a rain of bits of metal and human remains?

(Liars because they dubbed audio from one TV clip onto video from another, they inserted Tony into scenes he wasn't at, and they cut out a lot of frames from their 2nd Hit shot. All previously sourced by me, but I'll repost the links on request.)

Ray, I know you find this hard to believe, but take it from a professional filmmaker; there is nothing strange or unique about the things you have described above - with the exception of the Tony funeral claim, which you have failed to prove (the shot that would have been flipped is the salute shot, and can be easily be explained as a shot that needed to be picked up later (the industry call them "pick-ups")). Filmmaking, be it drama or a documentary, is about story-telling, and there are many techniques that are used to tell those stories. These things you call "lies" are nothing more than story-telling techniques.

If Gedeon was at the firehouse at 8:46 as claimed, then the foreknowledge-enabled clip of pedestrian reaction at 8:46 would have to have been shot by someone else on the Naudet-FDNY team, like James Hanlon who claims, "I was off that day."

Your entire argument revolves on the claim that your "bravenewworld" clip was taken at the time of the 1st plane hit. So far you have provided no evidence to support this claim, while simultaneously demonstrating plenty of failure of video interpretation.

Personally, though, I suspect Hanlon was playing the part of "Pavel Hlava" at 8:46, and the so-called Cheney 2nd Hit cameraman at 9:03, because the camera for both those shots exhibits similar, glaring problems with green and purple color spikes.

Is that honestly the best you can do, Ray? What was the original format the footage was recorded in? What is its conversion history? At any stage it could easily pick up "noise", especially if it was moving from PAL to NTSC or other formats.

In contrast, Ray, I can push aside your silly claim with two questions. Why is the traffic making no attempt whatsoever to move out of the way of the fire engine - which you claim has its lights on? And second, why is this fire engine mysteriously so low off the ground? Is it a midgit fire engine? The relative car/camera perspective is not high enough to be a van, let alone a fire truck. Tell me Ray, did Hanlon book the FDNY's midgit fire engine that day? Do New York's law's dictate that traffic does not have to give way to midgit fire engines? Only full size ones?

-Andrew