Reprinted with permission.
May 26, 2008 Preface
On 11 September 2001, someone flew a Boeing 767 jet -- height 52 feet, wingspan 156 feet -- into the upper floors of one of the most famous tourist attractions in New York and the world, the joint tallest building in the biggest city in the USA, the North Tower of the World Trade Center, in broad daylight, in front of a potential audience of millions. But only three people in the entire city captured any kind of photographic image of that plane,
But only three people in the entire city captured any kind of photographic image of that plane,and only one of those captured film of the plane actually hitting the building. But that one person captured the plane hitting the top third of the north face of that building, when he could only properly see the top third of the north face of that building (i.e. if the plane had hit any of the other 92%, he could not have filmed the impact).
Jules Naudet was the only person to film the first plane event. Mr. Naudet just happened to be a guest of the Fire Department of New York. Specifically, Chief Joseph Pfeifer, Battalion 1, responsibile for the whole Lower Manhattan area, including the World Trade Center. The photographer and his brother, Jules Naudet, had just been filming the Chief in the street as the jet flew overhead. Chief Pfeifer gave Jules Naudet permission Let's repeat those facts No tourist captured the impact That fact was not known to me until after the next year: It must have been known to the media within hours or days Two reasons I accepted the film as genuine:
Chief Pfeifer gave Jules Naudet permissionto carry on filming in the lobby of the North Tower, as the Chief helped to run the emergency response -- an emergency that later claimed the lives of 343 FDNY personnel, including the Chief's brother.
Let's repeat those facts: the only person in the whole of New York who filmed this passenger jet crashing into the joint tallest building in the city, in broad daylight, was with the second most senior fire officer (after his Battalion Commander) in Lower Manhattan when it happened -- and he filmed it hitting the building in exactly the same spot of his view of just 8% of the building's exterior facade.
No tourist captured the impact-- no TV photographer, no movie photographer, no security camera -- nobody filmed it, except Naudet.
That fact was not known to me until after the next year:in that year after 9/11, not once was the Naudet shot described as unique. If not for that fact, it could well be presumed to be perfectly innocent. That is what I assumed - until I learned the truth.
It must have been known to the media within hours or daysthat the Naudet shot was the only one, but nobody ever said so -- presumably because they knew it would attract suspicion. Even today, six years later, there must be people who do not know the film is unique, or do not realize the significance.
Two reasons I accepted the film as genuine:
- because for months after 9/11 it seemed to be deliberate media policy to create confusion as to which plane or tower we were watching (a fairly typical example being a Guardian front cover showing the nonsensical spectacle of a plane apparently flying towards a tower that was already on fire); and
- I assumed there must have been other films of the event, but the only one we ever saw, again and again -- the Naudet shot -- was quite simply the clearest and best. If I had known it was the only one, I would have seen through it right from the start; and so, presumably, would many others.
The Naudet film of Flight 11-- if that is the object in the picture -- has rightfully become one of the best-known pieces of documentary footage ever taken, but not because of the incredulity and suspicion the above facts should have invited. That only a small minority, including this writer, have ever expressed doubt about the Naudet brothers' ludicrous story is something that to me defies logical comprehension. Anyone who thinks there is nothing suspect about even this skeletal outline, let alone the full detailed analysis offered in this essay, must have something wrong with their thought processes. Those who know perfectly well the Naudet film is a fraud, but have no intention of advertising the fact, have to question their morality.
That includes folks (like 911truth.org)who masquerade as skeptics while peddling distraction and disinformation. After all, it would be ignorant to assume those behind 9/11 would not be running faked opposition, to control and to contaminate questions with more questions leading to . . . yet more questions.
To my knowledge-- and I challenge the reader to offer one contradictory example -- the history of photography has not one 'live' event captured like the Naudet film of American Airlines Flight 11. No other world-shattering event was ever as sudden, rapid and totally unexpected as it was to the people of New York. This is, essentially, why nobody else got it on film.
Nothing like it has ever been recorded on film.Not with only six seconds lead time, not after a 90-degree camera pan onto buildings about to be hit. Not centered in the view and framed by the buildings, like curtains framing the action on stage.
There is nothing like it before, and there has been nothing like it since.
In the putative "Complete History of Documentary Photography," in the chapter entitled "Accidental Pictures of Moments that Changed the World," the only name mentioned would be Jules Naudet's: how many other photographers have a whole branch of the art all to themselves? The unique 9/11 event was the subject of an equally unique photographic achievement. This absurdity has been almost completely ignored by the world's media Naudet could be called a classic Elephant in the Room, This piece is to make the Elephant visible I therefore must deny 'luck' as Plausibly Unbelievable; I invite you to do likewise.
This absurdity has been almost completely ignored by the world's mediasince the shot was first televised by Univision on the night of 11 September -- so completely that even most of the (genuine) people who have been telling us all along that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government itself have failed to pick up on it. The so-called investigative journalists remain ignorant of this story and its importance. They had the biggest story of their careers staring them in the face, and have they done anything with it?
Naudet could be called a classic Elephant in the Room,except that those animals can be seen well by folks who prefer just not to talk about them: this giant pachyderm, trumpeting right in their faces and soiling their carpets, blind they refuse to see.
This piece is to make the Elephant visible. There are only two explanations for Naudet's unique Flight 11 impact film: the first one offered is luck. That proposition is fatuous, for the reasons given in the analysis. Something akin to Plausible Gullibility is required to believe the Naudet brothers got lucky.
I therefore must deny 'luck' as Plausibly Unbelievable; I invite you to do likewise.
The second is Undeniable Intentionality - that the shot was arranged in advance, by some of the very few people who did know about Flight 11 before it appeared above New York. If Jules Naudet filmed its appearance, Jules Naudet was one of them, and is therefore an accessory to mass murder. Those who want names and evidence The self-incrimination, in fact, was deliberately left in the film, However hard it is for some folks to get their heads around the idea, Who wants to know the truth about 9/11 This film is one of the most outrageous propaganda exercises ever conducted. This analysis is offered in spite of those who refuse to believe This analysis is for those willing to accept reality Welcome to the real world.
Those who want names and evidenceto bring a 9/11 case to court -- the first involving direct participation in the conspiracy -- can find them here: Jules Naudet, Ge'de'on Naudet and James Hanlon. The evidence: the film they shot - "9/11" - in conjunction with this analysis and review.
The self-incrimination, in fact, was deliberately left in the film,as an insult -- and as an example of the dictum that the biggest, most blatant crimes need the biggest, most blatant lies; the outrageousness is a protection for the perpetrators -- just like 9/11 itself. Industrialized murder? It had to be propaganda -- "they wouldn't do it." That is, verbatim, what Noam Chomsky says today, about 9/11. The knowledge that that would be Chomsky's reaction is itself an argument for doing it. If even the great oracle of the American left refuses to accept it, the rest can be written off as hysterical idiots. p Three deaths would never have got the USA into Central Asia and Iraq -- and it would be quite plausible that the deaths could have been engineered for that purpose. Not 30 deaths would have done it, 300 would be more promising. At 3,000 deaths, the outrage created matches the outrage that it could have been an inside job; that is why it had to be 3,000 or more.
However hard it is for some folks to get their heads around the idea,there are people in this world who are psychopaths. They look and sound like normal human beings but are capable of thinking like that. Sometimes they wear business suits and uniforms. And sometimes they tell us they are French documentary film makers, like the Naudet Brothers.
Who wants to know the truth about 9/11should buy the Naudet DVD and watch the evidence in front of them. The stills here justify the arguments, but nothing substitutes for the original.
This film is one of the most outrageous propaganda exercises ever conducted.To see that, exercise your brain while watching the film and reading the detail of this report. Allow your mind to open and see with your own eyes; you will see the film for what it is. These people are lying; they are psychopaths pretending to be heroes. They are hiding behind real heroes. It takes more than wearing a New York fireman uniform to be a hero.
This analysis is offered in spite of those who refuse to believethat fraudulent sinners do masquerade as sanctimonious saints. If people feel humiliated because this spoils the comforting, infantile fantasy world in which they live, then so be it.
This analysis is for those willing to accept reality- willing to accept the cold, hard, miserable, depressing, enlightening God-awful truth.
Welcome to the real world.
Table of Contents - Links
10. What Next? Appendices - Links
Appendices - Links
III. The Naudets In 2006
VI. The Film Contract [Late Addition Aug 2007]* About the Author
About the Author
Leslie Raphael was born in 1951 in Scotland and still lives there. His main interests include languages, music of all varieties (except bad) and, of course, politics. Anyone who feels the need to know more can use the e-mail address.