Leslie Raphael's (Public) Conveniences

[gumboot]

A man with a major arterial bleed, his arm SEVERED AT THE SHOULDER, was HOLDING his severed arm AND RUNNING AROUND? Yeah, right! But hey, they needed to have Tony say SOMETHING about being there, since they didn't SHOW him being there.

Ray have you ever seen a film called "Saving Private Ryan"?

Do you recall, in the Omaha Beach landing scene, a shot of a soldier wandering around, picking up his severed arm, and wandering off with it?

That really happened, Ray. That particular account was recalled by an actual veteran, so the filmmakers included it. Truth is stranger than fiction. Limbs are severed in horrific events sometimes. People feel a strange attachment to those limbs. They don't want to leave them.

How many horrific events have you been in, Ray? Ever seen someone butchered? Ever seen people torn to pieces? Ever been surrounded by death and chaos and pain and suffering?

-Andrew

 

[Ray Ubinger]

Les is saying Jules Naudet wasn't just in the right place at the right time, he was in the perfect place at the perfect time, in the perfect way.

Had they known in advance, and had they intended to get a "perfect" shot of the first hit, there were dozens upon dozens of far superior vantage points.

For instance?

See again the section "Objections--and answers to them" at
http://www.spingola.com/jules_naudet.htm

Les' "69 conveniences" are laughable. Virtually all of them are utterly identical.

For instance?

Speaking of cell phones, can you believe the Naudet brothers didn't have them, despite being documentarians working in NYC?

Yes, I can. Not everyone in the world owns a cellphone.

Yeah but how many documentarians working in NYC don't?


Ray Ubinger

 

[Ray Ubinger]

Speaking of cell phones, can you believe the Naudet brothers didn't have them, despite being documentarians working in NYC? If they had them, that would destroy the heavily scripted Separation Anxiety subplot, wherein each brother thinks the other dead, only to be happy-Hollywood-ly reunited.

It's reasonable to think perhaps: 1) their cell coverage was not international,

Reportedly they had been in America for over a decade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naudet_brothers
I would agree it's confusing for such longterm American residents to call themselves Frenchmen.

2) one or both of them (if they did each carry a phone) was left behind at their hotel room, 3) they did carry them (are you saying they say they didn't?), but couldn't get service after the towers were hit.

They didn't tell us of any such obstacles or developments. That's not suspicious by itself, but consider all the obstacles and developments they did tell us of. They made such a big repeated deal out of how worried each brother was about the other. Gedeon says he was asking every ff he saw, Have you seen my brother? There was also specific stuff about the FDNY radio communication inside Tower 1 having trouble, several shots of unanswered calls, inaudible transmissions, and Jules himself remarking in a later interview how the poor radio commo underscored that things were "getting more and more difficult." But nowhere among all the talk of how concerned each brother was for the life of the other, and all the talk of the radio network, is any connection between the two, like, 'The poor radio connections even prevented anyone from being able to ask after Jules for Gedeon.'

Questions aren't evidence.

The questions are numerous, though.


Ray Ubinger

 

[Ray Ubinger]

http://911foreknowledge.com/badbleed.htm

A man with a major arterial bleed, his arm SEVERED AT THE SHOULDER, was HOLDING his severed arm AND RUNNING AROUND? Yeah, right! But hey, they needed to have Tony say SOMETHING about being there, since they didn't SHOW him being there.

Ray have you ever seen a film called "Saving Private Ryan"?
Do you recall, in the Omaha Beach landing scene, a shot of a soldier wandering around, picking up his severed arm, and wandering off with it?
That really happened, Ray.

I have not seen SPR. Sounds like the character you describe had already gotten the bleeding stopped, unlike the man in Tony's tall tale.


Ray Ubinger

 

[Ray Ubinger]

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?

They are either mistaken, or Gravy is paraphrasing them incorrectly, or they are lying. I'd have to see their actual statements to go further. And where were the statements first published? Or am I just supposed to take Gravy's word for them?

Is the Naudet camera lying? At least you have its 50 statements per second.
http://missilegate.com
Where in any frame do you see anything sized or shaped like a blurry 767 just 7/10ths of a mile from the camera?
http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig/flashframe.jpg


Gerard Holmgren on Why They Didn't Use Planes
http://911closeup.com/


Scott Loughrey on What About the Eyewitnesses
http://www.911hoax.com/gWitnesses2.asp?intPage=80&PageNum=80


example of a believable witness
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/itsabomb.htm


example of a laughable witness
http://thewebfairy.com/911/curtainchewer


Ray Ubinger

 

[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?

They are either mistaken, or Gravy is paraphrasing them incorrectly, or they are lying. I'd have to see their actual statements to go further. And where were the statements first published? Or am I just supposed to take Gravy's word for them?

Or are you plain and simply wrong?

Where is the evidence for murder?

 

[Ray Ubinger]

In Gravy's pic [Post #140] the corner of Church & Murray is not in sunlight, as it is in the bravenewworld clip. Any ideas on how to check what it would look like about an hour earlier?

I would say an hour earlier the streets are only going to have less sun on them. With those taller buildings east of Church Street I'd be very surprised to see any sun on int. Church and Murray at an earlier time in the morning (it may sneak down Park Place, but I doubt it).

The sunlight on Church-Murray in the bravenewworld clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
is sneaking down Murray. Not over the top of the bldgs on the E side of Church. In Gravy's pic from 10:28 a.m. this slice of light down Murray is still visible, but narrower and angled slightly northward, hitting the E side of the bldg on the NE corner of Church-Murray, but no longer flooding the Church-Murray intersection. The sun has moved slightly southward (independent of moving significantly higher) between the 8:46 a.m. bravenewworld shot and the 10:28 a.m. Gravy Post #140 shot.


Ray Ubinger

 

[Gravy]

Oh, Goody! Ray "D.C." Ubinger is back! Join Sir Knight and Killtown, Ray: they've been waiting for the third stooge to arrive.

 

[Ray Ubinger]

At the corner of Broadway and Park is the magnificent Woolworth building, one of the world's great skyscrapers, and the tallest building in the world from 1913-29. (Now condos.)

Specifically the NW corner of Broadway-Park?

The WW Bldg was also the site of some unexplained incident around 4 p.m.
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=4035

If you want I can take some photos there in the daytime this week.

The closer to Sept11, the more truly the sun's position will match what it was at the same time on 9/11.

I still think the row of 4+ squarish white blobs in the middle of Church in the bravenewworld clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
are window reflections from the Emigrant Savings Bank on the SW corner of Church-Murray. Not patches of dust as Andrew Gumboot claims. I see a guy walking right through one in the Naudet dvd, and not kicking up any dust. It's in an as-yet unexcerpted scene, but a screenshot of it forms the bottom half of Marcus Icke's comparison pair
http://tinyurl.com/dvxft
I submit that that row of squarish blobs of light in the middle of Church St. is closer to the trash can in the lower pic than in the upper pic. If so, then as window reflections they would establish the lower pic as later than the upper pic, which is from the bravenewworld clip. The earlier lower sun would cast the window reflections back more eastward with a more acute angle of reflection.

Once you see the top (bravenewworld) pic was earlier, you know the bravenewworld clip was not reaction to the 1st Collapse, b/c the later clip was still free of the very heavy 1st Collapse dust.


Ray Ubinger

Edited to add that last para and to delete two stray pics Gravy pointed to at the end of his post but which I have no comment on.

 

[Ray Ubinger]

When the crane known as 'Big Blue' collapsed (killing 3 iron workers) during the construction of the Milwaukee Brewer's new stadium, the event was captured by Japanese tourists driving down the highway next to the construction site. What are the odds that:

1) Japanese toursists would be in Milwaukee
2) They would be filming stuff while riding in the car
3) They would be going by at exactly the right moment to capture that footage

You could dig into this and find 100 reasons why they shouldn't have been able to shoot that video. But they did - does this mean they were in on it?

http://www2.jsonline.com/news/metro/jul99/timside15071599.asp

An interesting possible comparison case, but where's the vid itself? The article describes it as shaky, for starters. Jules Naudet's famous 1st Hit Impact shot seems to have been with a big hairy steadicam, it panned so perfectly smoothly up and left, from the alleged odor of alleged gas scene, directly to framing the 1st Hit impact point in almost the exact middle of the viewfinder, all within about a second, and stopping about a second before impact.


Ray Ubinger

ps/Edit
To repeat a way I may or may not have described in this forum before, Jules Naudet's camera aim was analogous to a perfect bullseye throw in darts.

 

[gumboot]

Jules Naudet's famous 1st Hit Impact shot seems to have been with a big hairy steadicam

I can tell you with confidence that that footage is handheld, not steadicam. I'm very familiar with determining how footage was shot based on frame movement.

-Andrew

 

[Ray Ubinger]

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.

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.

Having a camera already running at 8:46 to capture pedestrian reaction at the instant of the 1st Hit, implies foreknowledge of the attack. The fact that the footage comes from the Naudet-FDNY team implicates the govt and Naudets in that foreknowledge.


Ray Ubinger

 

[gumboot]

I see a guy walking right through one in the Naudet dvd, and not kicking up any dust. It's in an as-yet unexcerpted scene, but a screenshot of it forms the bottom half of Marcus Icke's comparison pair
http://tinyurl.com/dvxft

I would like to see this moment where a man walks through the light patches. I couldn't find it in their film. Perhaps you can guide me in the right direction? Upon a brief glance at this footage I will be able to tell you if it is a reflection or not.

-Andrew

 

[Ray Ubinger]

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

In about only one second of real time (stretched to around four seconds by the Naudets' rendering of it in slow motion), a crowd of 10+ pedestrians walking along normally -- not standing still, not looking up -- suddenly includes 4+ people whirling around and/or looking up, toward where WTC was.

and you simply ignore all the people in the video who aren't reacting at all. Why are you doing this?

Because the clip stops short after only about one second of real time, just long enough to show the quickest few people's reactions.

The way people at that location looked a moment later, between the 1st and 2nd Hits, can be seen at
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm
(click to play).

Note how the post-1st-Hit location4 crowd qualitatively and quantitatively differs from the pre-1st-Hit bravenewworld crowd at the same place. (shortly south of Murray along the east side of Church) In bravenewworld, the crowd is relatively sparse and everyone at the start of the clip is walking along normally. In location4, the crowd is packed and practically everyone is standing still and/or looking up.

Replace the "4" in the location4 url with 1, 2 and 3 to see other typical post-1st-Hit crowd shots along (I think) Church St.

There's nothing post-1st-Hit about the crowd at the start of the bravenewworld clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
and no sensible reason to think a third of them would suddenly whirl around/up within half a second of one another in some spontaneous simultaneous impulse of "Wow, it sure is terrible what's going on and now I need to take another look at it to really believe it."--as you and my other opponents seem to be arguing.

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

To the contrary, there's nothing post-1st-Hit about the crowd at the start of the bravenewworld clip
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
And there is no sensible reason to postulate that a third of them would suddenly whirl around/up within half a second of one another in some spontaneous simultaneous impulse of "Wow, it sure is terrible what's going on and now I need to take another look at it to really believe it."--as you and my other opponents seem to be arguing.


Ray Ubinger
edited to correct creation of final quoted bit

 

[Ray Ubinger]

I can tell you with confidence that that footage is handheld, not steadicam. I'm very familiar with determining how footage was shot based on frame movement.

-Andrew

If you're right, we have no way to know it. I argued from how the vid looks. You simply appeal to your own authority.

Small, brief version of the shot in question:
http://tinyurl.com/6zx44
aka
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/first.plane.hits.gp.med.html


Ray Ubinger

 

[Matthew Best]

That is definitely not a Steadicam. I don't think a Steadicam is even capable of being that jerky.

 

[Gravy]

In about only one second of real time (stretched to around four seconds by the Naudets' rendering of it in slow motion), a crowd of 10+ pedestrians walking along normally -- not standing still, not looking up -- suddenly includes 4+ people whirling around and/or

These people "react" at different times, and what do the other 10+ people do when, as you say, an ENORMOUS explosion happens three blocks away?

Why, they don't react at all. Not even a flinch. Naturally.

Ray Ubinger, your behavior is despicable. Please seek professional mental health care before you slide further into your sick, delusional state.

 

[gumboot]

If you're right, we have no way to know it. I argued from how the vid looks. You simply appeal to your own authority.

It's not an appeal to authority, because my expertise is relevant to the question at hand. I also never said we have no way to know. I am telling you right now I DO know. It is NOT a Steadicam shot.

-Andrew

 

[Ray Ubinger]

Why would the whole firehouse worth of men and vehicles have been at the allegedly no-big-deal, Alleged Odor of Alleged Gas?

Perhaps you missed the news:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/am-collapse0710,0,1623755.story?track=mostviewed-homepage
Gas leaks are hardly something to show little concern over.

Tell that to all the firemen in the Naudet movie who allege that the odor-of-gas call was no big deal. Several of them are quoted directly in Les Raphael's rticle which is the original subject of this thread. Typical remarks went like

"pretty simple," "just routine" (Chief Joseph Pfeifer)

"you don't think much of it" (Joe Casaliggi)

"just odor of gas, Lispenard & Church" (Capt. Dennis Tardio)

"the call was for a gas leak in the street, or an odor of gas, I think it was" (Nick Borrillo)


I submit that the reason they pretended gas leaks are no big deal is that the whole alleged odor of alleged gas was a complete fiction, a scripted invention, a call that never actually came in, and most importantly, a CATALYST type plot device, something which ENABLES an important plot point (their ability to film the 1st Hit) without undergoing any change in and of itself. That is, we are not supposed to actually wonder what became of the reported odor of gas. They never tell us. We are just supposed to go Oh My God Look At That Tower On Fire and totally forget what enabled the filming of it in the first place.


Ray Ubinger

 

[gumboot]

That is definitely not a Steadicam. I don't think a Steadicam is even capable of being that jerky.

If you were a REALLY good operator with years of experience I reckon you MIGHT be able to get it to look like hand-held, but it's thoroughly unlikely. I very much doubt after the plane hit the fireman hang around waiting for him to get out of his rig though...

A very good friend of mine, Neil Cervin (one of our top SteadiCam operators before he went into DPing) once told me getting SteadiCam to look like hand-held is next to impossible (and obviously totally illogical).

-Andrew