Congratulations ! You are reading the one 9/11 website with a hope in hell of getting us somewhere : one with some actual hard documentary (literally) evidence behind it — the picture above, for a start — and one that names names. You won't find the Illuminati in this one ; you won't find the claim that no planes ever hit the Trade Center, because I don't believe that ; you won't find your time wasted with "proofs" of demolitions carried out by folk who are never identified, even by speculation.

Step 1 : anyone interested in 9/11, no matter what your views on who did it, should already have a DVD copy of the film "9/11," directed by Jules and Gédéon Naudet and James Hanlon. If you think you're an expert on 9/11, but you don't have that film, you're not. Everyone who cares about what happened that day, and wants to find out the truth, should have a copy, and should have some familiarity with the film. If you're not prepared to spend a few dollars or pounds, or give up some of your time and make a bit of effort, stop reading now and go elsewhere, to put it politely. There is a version of the film posted on YouTube, but it is a different edit : this article is based on the DVD cut, and tells you exactly where to find all the stills and sequences under discussion. You could just take my word that what is shown here is in the DVD, and I have not faked or misrepresented anything, but having the original is better, and would help you follow my arguments. This is not an easy read, and I will not pretend otherwise : 9/11 is not an easy subject.

I should say — and I am not going to mince my words — that if you read this article, and reject everything in it, or reject it without bothering to read it, you are only proving how dead from the neck up you are, and how right the people behind 9/11 were to assume that most folk are a lot stupider and more gullible than they like to think, or have others think. If you can read this investigation of the Naudet film and think I am completely wrong and there is absolutely nothing of any value in any of it, you are an idiot : there is nothing else to be said. These folk are shoving their complicity right in your face, as clear as day, and if you still can't see it, even when I point it out to you, what else do you deserve to be called but an idiot ? This is not arrogance, but frustration at trying to get through to people I know have the intelligence to realise there is a case to answer, but for some reason refuse to accept it. There is a direct correlation between paying attention to this article and making the perpetrators of 9/11 uncomfortable, and I am not remotely surprised that after eight years of you wasting your time on irrelevant nonsense, they are all quite comfy, thank you very much — not anticipating seeing the inside of a jail cell in the next few decades. Ignore this article, and you're making sure they don't.

Whoever you think was behind 9/11, we can agree a major aspect of it is government propaganda, and a major aspect of that, since the days of Eisenstein and Riefenstahl, has been film. This article is about named individuals who had roles to play in that part of 9/11, who knew what was going to happen, knew thousands were going to be killed, did nothing about it and have probably never had one twinge of conscience ever since. They didn't kill anybody, but their foreknowledge makes them legally liable. Reading this is a necessary step on the long road towards making them pay for it.

I take as a given that anyone reading this is susceptible to rational thought — an assumption that does not apply to millions of people, most notably in a country with the most idiotic gun laws on the planet and an attachment to capital punishment given up long ago by most modern civilised states, and even some uncivilised ones. If the mere suggestion that Americans might have done 9/11 is enough to make you spout gibbering hysterical hatred — and it does with some folk — my ideas are probably not good for you, and I don't want to listen to yours. If you think only Arabs could have done it, and you refuse to listen to anything else, that's not patriotism : it's racism, which is obviously still endemic in American society.

When American Airlines Flight 11 smashed into the top of the north face of World Trade Center No. 1 in New York at 8.46 AM EDT on the morning of September 11, 2001, a French photographer called Jules Naudet captured the impact on his camcorder. The official story was and is that for weeks past he and his brother Gédéon had been making a documentary film about New York firefighters based at Duane Street, seven blocks north of the Trade Center, and he had been out on the street filming them that morning, after a call about a suspected gas leak came in around 8.30.

As he filmed the firemen, they suddenly heard the unusual sound of a jet roaring past low above them, and Naudet miraculously managed to snatch a recording of the plane hitting the tower, soon to be shown countless times in news bulletins and elsewhere, for months and years to come. That story is as far as most folk go : in fact, most folk don't even know that much, but the few who are aware of the Naudet shot tend to go no further than the official publicity. Why would they ? It's a plausible enough story : they would never dream of questioning its innocence or authenticity, and at the time almost no-one did, including me.

A year later, when the full-length film by the brothers was shown on British TV and around the world, I read for the first time the word "unique" applied to the above Flight 11 impact shot included in it, and my first reaction was incredulity that no-one else had filmed it. A Boeing 767 is flown straight into the joint tallest building in New York in broad daylight, visible to potentially millions of people, and only one person gets it on film ? Eventually, having failed to find any references to any other film, I accepted that it must be true, and that the question had now changed. There must be reasons why no-one else filmed it, and reasons why Naudet did.

The more I went into that question, and the more I investigated the circumstances, the more I came to realise, in a very gradual dawning of reality, that the Naudet story was a fabrication, put together to explain a piece of photography that was incredibly unlikely to have been accidental. My reasons for drawing that conclusion, and the implications that follow from it, are the main subject of this article.

I could exemplify by pointing out that, to my knowledge, the only firehouse in New York that had already been out on a call since 8.30 when the first 9/11 plane arrived just happened to be the one that was having a film made about it, and just happened to be the one located closest to the side of the building the plane hit, and that the only photographer in the city who filmed that event just happened to be out on the street with a perfect view of that building, unobstructed by other buildings, cars, fire trucks, people — so perfect a view he could capture the impact, after a 90-degree pan, no less, right in the centre of his picture.

A perfect view of the building, but not the whole building — only the top third of the north face : the part the plane hit, right in the centre. Were these firefighters actually fighting a fire at the time ? No — would they even have heard the plane ? — the call was about a gas leak, and they were dealing with it, as shown in the film and in this article, by standing around staring at the street, as if waiting for something — just before the plane turned up. The more of these pieces of "luck" that can be listed — and the list goes on and on — the more obvious it becomes that this story is not in fact remotely plausible, and that it was stuck together in bits as an invented pretext for how this unique piece of film came about.

My conclusion is that it came about because the photographer, like these alleged firemen, knew what was going to happen at 8.46 : luck had nothing to do with it. There are 200 firehouses in New York : Jules Naudet did not pick one miles away from the Trade Center, and he wasn't stuck in the toilet on Tuesday morning when the news came in — on TV — about a plane hitting one of the towers, leaving him to rush out and film the burning tower, but no plane, like a thousand other cameramen. That story belongs to reality : the Naudet story is straight out of a Hollywood film — and they made one out of it — but they called it a documentary.

It should be uncontroversial to point out that whoever was behind 9/11 would have wanted the first impact captured on film. If it was who the official story blames, it would be unthinkable to go to those lengths to achieve that result but get no film evidence of their greatest coup against their enemies. At least one film record of that event would have come from those who brought it about, and knew it was going to happen : their film would not have been a lucky accident. But if Al Qaeda, who we are told had planned to video their attack on the USS Cole the previous year, filmed Flight 11's impact from somewhere in New York, that film has never surfaced, and we can be sure it would, like all their subsequent propaganda videos and cassettes.

What we have instead is the Naudet shot, and since it is unique, that fact alone tells us that this is the film from those who wanted the first obscenity of the 9/11 sequence recorded, and that Jules Naudet was operating on their behalf when he recorded it. If at least one film had to be from the perpetrators, but we only have one film, what does that tell us ? Who was behind it ? This does not necessarily imply the Naudets were working for Al Qaeda : it could imply that Al Qaeda was not, or not alone, behind 9/11.

This, of course, is only one general observation, added to the case against the Naudets, which I regard as the main hope of those of us still fighting for the truth about 9/11, eight years later, against apathy and cynicism on our own side as well as an endless barrage of lies and drivel coming from the other. There must be an understandable reluctance to join the small minority of us who treat the Naudets as key : if I am right about them, it means anyone who has ignored this aspect since 2002 or earlier must be something of an idiot, and who wants to admit that ? I am not asking for admissions, but for arguments against my case, without which — and I have yet to hear any — I intend to carry on proposing it and advertising it, no matter how hard it is to get the message over. I am not giving up the Naudet story because of something as ridiculous as salving other folks' wounded pride.

There is only one interpretation of the Naudet film : they knew it was going to happen, they knew some of the people who made it happen, and they are our best hope of exposing and bringing to justice those murdering scum — while Obama tries to distract us with the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed pantomime, carrying on where Bush left off, as if 2008 never happened. The folk who did 9/11 are still in business, and unless someone can claim to be on the verge of getting Cheney and company in court, facing charges, I would humbly suggest paying more attention meanwhile to the Naudet brothers and their thoroughly bizarre 9/11 film. If my case is complete nonsense, it shouldn't be too hard to tell me exactly why.

To those who ask why, if I am right about the Naudets, I haven't done more with it and have not much progress to report, the answer is that I am not a professional journalist, or author, or lawyer. I have spent the last seven years trying to get people like that to open their eyes and look at the case, so that they could use their talents and resources to take it further : I never had either the intention or the ability to do more than draw attention to the subject. "If there was anything in it, other folk would have got onto it by now" is the most pathetic reaction to these ideas, and it only perpetuates the problem of how to gain momentum and end that vicious circle.

I will say that I don't particularly want popularity from people with a 5-minute attention span, or who expect me to offer them an instant, tidy, perfect solution to something like 9/11. Unlike that, or its Naudet spin-off, real life is messy, and fragmentary, and disjointed, and confused. Anyone looking for 9/11's Sherlock Holmes or Columbo to tie up all the loose ends and get all the guilty parties nailed will not find him here : in fact, I want them, and the 9/11 quitters, to do the same as the perpetrators — and their protectors in politics and the media.

BBC, ITN, CNN, Fox, Times, New York Times, Blair, Brown, Bush, Obama and the rest of you can all go straight to hell. None of your nonsense has had the slightest effect on my determination to stick to the subject, and get the Naudets and their associates convicted. I am not giving up : I never expected a result in minutes, or days, or weeks, and I am in this for the duration, meaning as long as it takes.

As for those aware of the Naudet story, but who have chosen to reject it or ignore it, I promise you now you will come back to it, and you will finally listen to it, when you find your own methods and ideas are going nowhere, and have achieved nothing since 2001, if achievement means movement towards a prosecution, or getting the media to address the subject seriously, or just stop lying about it. I see no evidence of any of that : meanwhile the brothers are out there, hoping we all — or most of us — stay clueless and misguided for ever. Jules and Gédéon Naudet — you are going to jail, and Myers, Tenet and the rest of the gang are heading the same way. Your confidence in our stupidity and your own safety is fatally misplaced. You've made eight years : it could end tomorrow. Keep hoping it doesn't.

Eight days before 9/11, one of the Naudets gives us a view — by totally ironic accident — of all three buildings destroyed. While accidentally 40 feet above Duane Street firehouse. Accidentally squeezed into a cherrypicker with two large firemen. Accidentally filming in the right direction. Accidentally holding this view throughout the scene. Accidentally positioning the North Tower antenna in the exact centre. Accidentally showing all of all three buildings. Accidentally keeping both heads from blocking the view, well out of the way. Definitely not deliberate — purely accidental. Well, maybe a tragic premonition, at most. Maybe God was pointing the camera, trying to warn us. Or give us a last look at them.

Or maybe the photographer knew it was eight days.

==========================================================================================

Dedicated to Jim Raphael (1916-2007) : father, socialist, fireman.

About the author

Leslie Raphael was born in 1951 in Scotland and still lives there. For more, or to offer comment (or information on the Naudets, Hanlon or others you may feel played a role), email lesraphael1@gmail.com or phone (00 44) 07972 503 836 or 07517 067 742.

Special thanks to Frank Tolopko for hosting this article, and for all his support ; thanks also to the many others offering help and encouragement, and for their contribution to getting the truth about the Naudets on record (especially the ones who were saying it before me).

Spread the word ! Read the article, digest it, discuss it, publicise it, and if you have a website, link to this one (www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911).

==========================================================================================

Contents

1. Introduction 2. The Flight 11 shot in 39 cuts 3. Conveniences 4. Maps 5. Objections and answers 6. Photographic demonstration 7. Elsewhere in the Naudet film 8. The Northwoods context 9. The 9/11 convictions

10. What next ? Appendix 1: Pavel Hlava and Wolfgang Staehle Appendix 2: The 9/11 film industry Appendix 3: The Naudets in 2006 ... and later Appendix 4: Evidence from the film Appendix 5: A letter from Des Browne Appendix 6: The film contract Appendix 7: 9/11 observations

==========================================================================================

"They say there is always a witness for history. I guess ... that day, we were chosen to be the witness"
— Jules Naudet (03:51 into the film). Chosen by whom ? The Great Scriptwriter in the Sky ? Or ...
 

(c) 2008 by Leslie Raphael. All Rights Reserved. This article is under copyright protection and cannot be reproduced without permission of the author.