Leslie Raphael's (Public) Conveniences

[triforcharity]

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

Argument from personal ignorance.

A smell of gas is classified as a non-fire emergency.

In FY 05, FDNY ran 180,284 Non-fire Emergencies. Even if ONLY 1% of them are for the smell of gas, that is still 1802.84 per year.
FY 06, 199,690 1%=1,996.90
FY 07 211,459 1%=2,114.59
FY 08 197,245 1%=1,972.45
FY 09 193,709 1%=1,937.09

1% is most likely a very low estimate, as there are gas is just about every single building in the entire city.

These numbers come from here.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/pdf/publications/annual_reports/2008_2009/2008_2009_annual_report.pdf

2008-2009 Annual Report, page 24 pdf.

So, no, a gas leak, or even the smell of gas is not a major incident, and is actually quite common.

 

[Ray Ubinger]

all lies.

There is none so blind as he who will not see. All I can do is repost the link that shows there really was no Flight 11 on Logan's schedule that day, according to U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics' public online searchable database, screenshot years later:

http://tinyurl.com/btsaa11

Same for "AA77" at Dulles:

http://tinyurl.com/btsaa77


Ray

 

[Ray Ubinger]

Both 11 and 175 were regular flights that flew every weekday.

UA175 was on the schedule. I never said it wasn't. The two UA's were, the two AA's weren't.

I've read that when a regular flight is not on some day's BTS schedule it means it would had to have been de-scheduled at least a week prior. I don't have a cite for that; it may be in a federal statute. Whatever the fact means, the fact IS that 11 and 77 were not scheduled that day. First I was chided for saying so, apparently because it would be impossible, and now I'm chided for thinking it's suspicious, apparently because it's the most natural ignorable expectable thing in the world.


Ray

 

[DGM]

UA175 was on the schedule. I never said it wasn't. The two UA's were, the two AA's weren't.

I've read that when a regular flight is not on some day's BTS schedule it means it would had to have been de-scheduled at least a week prior. I don't have a cite for that; it may be in a federal statute. Whatever the fact means, the fact IS that 11 and 77 were not scheduled that day. First I was chided for saying so, apparently because it would be impossible, and now I'm chided for thinking it's suspicious, apparently because it's the most natural ignorable expectable thing in the world.


Ray

Have you contacted the airlines or Massport? If not why? The data base you quote is for airline on-time statistics not a departure log. Maybe the FAA could help you with your problem.

So you believe the United flight existed but not the American. Have you looked into it being a reporting error with the airline?

 

[T.A.M.]

What % of them took years to appear on the schedule at all? What % of those when their omissions were discovered were then followed by the BTS changing their url w/o leaving a forwarding address?

I call the reaction here the No Way/So What. First I'm derided as needing to be jailed for making stuff up - No Way could AA 11 and 77 not be on that day's officially federally logged flight schedule. Then when I prove it, well So What, that's no big deal.

Ray

Well what I am telling you is based on the fact that so many of the flights have 00:00 as their departure time, and have no identifying tail numbers, that this alleged list of all departures from Logan on 9/11 is VERY INCOMPLETE, and as a result, is totally unreliable wrt whether there was a flight 11. You put that up against the plethora of evidence that THERE WAS a flight 11, and well...you know the rest.

TAM

 

[Ray Ubinger]

this alleged list of all departures from Logan on 9/11 is VERY INCOMPLETE

So What if two allegedly real flights weren't put into the BTS database until years later (when simultaneously BTS changed their url without leaving a forwarding address). No Way was that the case when I first claimed it, I should have been jailed for making stuff up at that point, but now that I proved it, So What, it probably happens all the time, heck everyone probably even knew it all along.

put that up against the plethora of evidence that THERE WAS a flight 11

Like how its alleged video image is shaped unlike any kind of airplane, and how the only witness of it quoted that day to call it a large passenger jet was a CNN exec? Yeah you're on a roll.

Ray

 

[T.A.M.]

So What if two allegedly real flights weren't put into the BTS database until years later (when simultaneously BTS changed their url without leaving a forwarding address). No Way was that the case when I first claimed it, I should have been jailed for making stuff up at that point, but now that I proved it, So What, it probably happens all the time, heck everyone probably even knew it all along.



Like how its alleged video image is shaped unlike any kind of airplane, and how the only witness of it quoted that day to call it a large passenger jet was a CNN exec? Yeah you're on a roll.

Ray

What you did a few years ago, I have no idea. I don't remember you, and I may not have even known you were a member here. It really doesn't give me pause.

As for proof there was a flight 11...

1. testimony of family members of those who were on that flight.
2. Air Traffic Controllers testimony, including JREF member Cheapshot, who was one of the ATC members who was overseeing the AA11 flight plan etc...
3. The passenger lists produced by AA for flight 11.
4. The audio tapes between the flight and ATC, where flight 11 is identified by just that "11".

All you have is a spotty, incomplete webpage and a WHOLE LOT of speculation and insinuation.

You are correct, I am on a roll, and you are not.

TAM

 

[Ray Ubinger]

Have you contacted the airlines or Massport? If not why?

I have different areas of S11 research specialty. Side topics come up, and in one of those I mentioned in passing the years-long absence of 11 and 77 from the BTS database. Two people called me liars, but then I proved it, and now people are saying I haven't taken enough steps to prove my own evidence irrelevant.

The data base you quote is for airline on-time statistics not a departure log.

Two alleged flights at different airports on the same date show up using those search terms now, but didn't for years.

Have you looked into it being a reporting error with the airline?

Kinda like how an alleged AA statement cited by an offscreen reporter early on ID'd the 2nd Hit as being AA77? No I started with the lack of plane evidence in the 1st Hit vid and the Pentagon pics, and find the BTS data to confirm what the camera evidence already established. Adding the flights only years later, shortly after their nonexistence was published, simultaneous with changing url's without leaving a forwarding address, is consistent with guilty demeanor.


Ray

 

[Ray Ubinger]

As for proof there was a flight 11...

Tell it to Jules Naudet's camera, which didn't have an agenda:

http://tinyurl.com/flashframe
http://tinyurl.com/flashframefoursome


Ray

 

[T.A.M.]

SO you went with finding evidence to back your delusions, but didn't bother to track down proof that might show you you were wrong.

Well at least the truthers are consistent in their approach.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Tell it to Jules Naudet's camera, which didn't have an agenda:

http://tinyurl.com/flashframe
http://tinyurl.com/flashframefoursome


Ray

nice undiscernable crappy cartoons. Light reflection, camera anomole, the start of the impact...hard tell with that **** you call video evidence.

Try again.

TAM

 

[Disbelief]

nice undiscernable crappy cartoons. Light reflection, camera anomole, the start of the impact...hard tell with that **** you call video evidence.

Try again.

TAM

But it's far better for his "case" if he shows a one time anomaly as opposed to the whole sequence of events. The no-planers really miss the big picture.

 

[T.A.M.]

But it's far better for his "case" if he shows a one time anomaly as opposed to the whole sequence of events. The no-planers really miss the big picture.

Now now, you know that before you graduate from truther school, you are required to take classes in "the layman analysis of grainy low rez video" before you can graduate...give him a break.

TAM

 

[Ray Ubinger]

SO you went with finding evidence to back your delusions, but didn't bother to track down proof that might show you you were wrong.

I directly perceive by the photographic record that the 1st Hit and Pentagon hit did not involve airplanes. You can call my vision deluded but I seem to be able to drive and walk around without running into things.


Ray

 

[beachnut]

I directly perceive by the photographic record that the 1st Hit and Pentagon hit did not involve airplanes. You can call my vision deluded but I seem to be able to drive and walk around without running into things.


Ray

You have delusions and 9 years of failure.

RADAR proves you wrong on both counts. Failure, 9 years.
DNA proves you wrong, both counts.

Why have you failed to call the FBI? lol, you have nothing but delusions.

 

[BigAl]

I directly perceive by the photographic record that the 1st Hit and Pentagon hit did not involve airplanes. You can call my vision deluded but I seem to be able to drive and walk around without running into things.

Ray

How do you explain the fact that the bodies of everyone that boarded Flight 77 were identified in the debris of essentially the entire 140 tons of airplane buried inside the Pentagon 90 minutes after takeoff. All of this was witnessed by hundred of people, we have the statements of about 250. The black boxes were recovered. The audio box records Arabic language and a hijacking. The data box shows a flight path that agrees with the FAA radar track and the cellphone/airphone data and shows that the plane was being flown on manual control by the hijackers control right to the end. We have the boarding manifest. We have video of them boarding. Like Flt 93, 11 and 175, the Flight 77 and occupants have never been since that day. This includes my work-mate, Ed Felt (flight 93.)

 

[T.A.M.]

I directly perceive by the photographic record that the 1st Hit and Pentagon hit did not involve airplanes. You can call my vision deluded but I seem to be able to drive and walk around without running into things.


Ray

Where did I comment on your vision. The photos you presented or small, grainy, low rez screenshots that are barely descernable as the plane hitting (or about to hit) the WTC....as a matter of fact, if those pics alone were the only evidence of the impact, I doubt you could determine if it was a plane, or the WTC, as the images are of such poor quality.

TAM

 

[DGM]

I have different areas of S11 research specialty. Side topics come up, and in one of those I mentioned in passing the years-long absence of 11 and 77 from the BTS database. Two people called me liars, but then I proved it, and now people are saying I haven't taken enough steps to prove my own evidence irrelevant.



Two alleged flights at different airports on the same date show up using those search terms now, but didn't for years.



Kinda like how an alleged AA statement cited by an offscreen reporter early on ID'd the 2nd Hit as being AA77? No I started with the lack of plane evidence in the 1st Hit vid and the Pentagon pics, and find the BTS data to confirm what the camera evidence already established. Adding the flights only years later, shortly after their nonexistence was published, simultaneous with changing url's without leaving a forwarding address, is consistent with guilty demeanor.


Ray

Are the people in this video liars? One posts on this forum (first panel the gentleman sitting on the right)

http://c-span.com/Watch/Media/2010/...xas+Panel+Discussion+on+911+and+Aviation.aspx

 

[Lenbrazil]

So What if two allegedly real flights weren't put into the BTS database until years later (when simultaneously BTS changed their url without leaving a forwarding address). No Way was that the case when I first claimed it, I should have been jailed for making stuff up at that point, but now that I proved it, So What, it probably happens all the time, heck everyone probably
even knew it all along.



Like how its alleged video image is shaped unlike any kind of airplane, and how the only witness of it quoted that day to call it a large passenger jet was a CNN exec? Yeah you're on a roll.

Ray

Is English your 1st language? As has been pointed out to you the page you linked is clearly marked "Airline On-Time Statistics". On time means that something happened at the scheduled time, flight 11 left 14 minutes late, flight 77 left 35 minutes late.

 

[triforcharity]

Argument from personal ignorance.

A smell of gas is classified as a non-fire emergency.

In FY 05, FDNY ran 180,284 Non-fire Emergencies. Even if ONLY 1% of them are for the smell of gas, that is still 1802.84 per year.
FY 06, 199,690 1%=1,996.90
FY 07 211,459 1%=2,114.59
FY 08 197,245 1%=1,972.45
FY 09 193,709 1%=1,937.09

1% is most likely a very low estimate, as there are gas is just about every single building in the entire city.

These numbers come from here.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/pdf/publications/annual_reports/2008_2009/2008_2009_annual_report.pdf

2008-2009 Annual Report, page 24 pdf.

So, no, a gas leak, or even the smell of gas is not a major incident, and is actually quite common.

Ray,

This post still awaits your comment. Thanks.