|
JULES NAUDET'S FIRST PLANE SHOT WAS STAGED
A Clue to the Truth
about 9/11 ?
Leslie Raphael
October 2008
On 11 September 2001, at 8:46 am EDT (1:46 pm GMT), an American Airlines Boeing 767-223ER passenger jet was flown 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
although, as it turned out later much later a total of three people
managed to capture some kind of photographic image of that plane, it was
known within hours that only one person had filmed the plane actually
hitting the building, and that remains the position today. If
that was all the information we had to go on, no-one would imagine there
was anything suspect about it : we could assume the photographer was
obviously just lucky, he was probably alone at the time, undistracted, his
shot probably left a lot to be desired in terms of quality, and those few
seconds of blurred, out-of-focus film would have been the end of his
story. But that is not what happened.
If we add just a little more
information, the picture changes : such as the fact that this
photographer, Jules Naudet, captured the plane hitting the only 12th of
the building he had a proper view of the lower two thirds of the north face were hidden, and so were the entire heights of the other three sides; that he was in the street
immediately next door to the one that led down to the Twin Towers ; that a
vertical line splitting his shot in half passes right between the Trade
Center towers ; that the picture was perfectly in focus, before and after
a 90-degree pan left, towards an impact the photographer ostensibly had no
reason to expect ; that he was the guest of and had just been filming
the chief of the nearest firehouse north of the Trade Center ; and that that
officer then had him driven down to the North Tower, where he carried on
filming in the lobby until the collapse of the South Tower an hour later,
before having a miraculous escape from the collapse of North.
Not
quite the version assumed : the photographer was not alone ; his shot was
not blurred or out-of-focus ; the plane impact was not the end of his
story ; and these few are not the only circumstances that, in combination,
raise profound questions about luck being the explanation for our one
piece of film of this unrepeatable event that changed the world. This
article is not based on vague, indefinable suspicions that the shot looks
a bit too convenient ; what makes it suspect can be specifically defined
and quantified, and I identify dozens of conveniences, and
dozens of other suspect sequences in the full-length documentary film that
includes the first plane shot titled simply "9/11," and co-directed by
Naudet and his brother Gιdιon, with their actor/fireman associate James
Hanlon.
My purpose in writing this is to demonstrate, through
observation, analysis and deduction, that those three filmmakers had
foreknowledge of, and were complicit in, the mass murders of 9/11. I
suspect, while admitting this part is more speculative, that the Naudets (and
others) were contracted to film 9/11 by the people who organised that
obscenity probably from the world of the US military or intelligence
community, or both. Millions of people around the world now share that
interpretation of 9/11, and the number grows every day, but far fewer have
realised the significance of the Naudet first plane shot. I hope to open
people's eyes to a minor but important aspect of 9/11 that has been
overlooked or ignored for far too long. I am not claiming 100% certainty
about everything in this article : I may be wildly off target in some
areas, slightly wrong in others, but I do believe the basic proposition
stands up to scrutiny.
In December 2007 the Naudets produced their first film project for six years, but have still to shake
off the legacy of 9/11 : in fact, the film is said to have been inspired
by what happened that day. The questions raised by the previous film still
remain unanswered, so I see no reason to stop asking them : they are just
as valid now as when I first raised them in 2002. The USA is
still in Iraq, Afghanistan and Central Asia, and showing as some of us
predicted no intention of ever leaving ; there are currently only two
upheld convictions for 9/11 ; after seven years of research and campaigning,
we have failed to expose those truly responsible for the murders. I think
we need new angles, and I think this one new to most merits further,
deeper investigation, by people with better resources and more authority
than I can claim.
A challenge and an advert : first, the challenge.
One measure of the improbability of the Flight 11 shot being authentic is that there has never been anything like it before or since : no-one has ever accidentally captured footage of a major, but totally unexpected, historical event. If there is anyone out there, especially from the world of professional photography, who can offer one comparable example, I want to hear it. If there are no takers, I suggest conceding that there is something seriously wrong with Jules Naudet's unique achievement, and my explanation is that his event was not unexpected. Millions of photographers have deliberately filmed something they knew was going to happen : this photographer cannot admit that was what he did, because it would mean confessing to criminal complicity, so instead we get his ludicrous "accidental shot" story. It never happens, for perfectly simple, obvious reasons. Nobody before him ever managed it, Jules Naudet did not break that mould on 9/11 and his claim is worse than outrageous arrogance it is a downright murderous lie. If the Flight 11 shot has a precursor, it would be the famous film of an alleged sasquatch, doing a brilliant impression of a man in a gorilla suit. But the Naudet film, just as idiotic and just as fake, is taken seriously by people who should have more sense.
The advert : buy the Naudet DVD
and watch the evidence in front of you ; you may well spot things that
have escaped me so far, and I see new things on every viewing. Their "9/11" docudrama is
one of the most monstrous propaganda exercises ever produced, and all you
have to do to see that is to exercise your brain watching it. I am
inviting no-one to stop believing, as I do, that there was heroism that day, and that the USA is in many ways a great country. But, like certain
members of the US government and its agencies, wrapping themselves in the
flag (the proverbial last refuge of a scoundrel), the subjects and makers
of this film are lying, murdering psychopaths : fake heroes, hanging out
with real ones the genuine members of the New York Fire Department, the
Police Department, Twin Towers workers, volunteers and others.
To those detractors who accuse me of indulging in mere "speculation" : where, seven years later, is this rock-solid, cast-iron indictment of yours, with a 100% certainty of convictions against members of the US Government ? The proposition that that was ever going to be available, and that the only alternative was letting them get away with it, is a total nonsense. The best case we were ever likely to put together was one based on circumstantial evidence : the case against the Naudets and associates fits that bill, and is at least as good as any other on offer and what is on offer ? What kind of case is there against folk like Myers or Eberhart or Rumsfeld or Tenet or Silverstein ? That is what you call speculation. United States v. Naudet, Exhibit A : unique video film of Flight 11 hitting One World Trade Center. That is what you call evidence.
One last point, to be paid maximum attention : I know it might be impossibly idealistic of me, but I expect my case to be taken on its merits, and only on those. The only thing you need to be concerned with is : is this statement true ? Does this make sense ? Is this picture in the film ? Is that an accurate quote ? Does that have the significance I say it has ? Anybody who approaches this with the idea that who I am is more important than what I'm saying how many degrees do I have ? how many 9/11 conferences have I been to ? how many 9/11 Grammies have I won ? is a complete moron, and can stop reading right now : I want neither your interest nor your endorsement. This subject is plagued by people trying to make their ideas "respectable" enough to be accepted by academics or scientists or the media : they are wasting their time it is never going to happen that is not the way forward. I want endorsement by liars about as much as by morons. If the press ever accepted my Naudet case, I would instantly know I had failed or Murdoch and company had finally been put up against a wall.
When we have a certain Professor of Linguistics at MIT, described by the New York Times as "arguably the most important intellectual alive," telling me his best case against 9/11 being an inside job was "They wouldn't do it," does it really need to be said that who folk are is an irrelevance ? Is that an advert for being an intellectual ? Stuff intellectuals : what matters is what you say and do, and I want this article judged on that basis. Is it true ? Not "How many big words does it have in it ?" Not "Who is this guy ?" And definitely not "Why is he saying horrible things I don't want to have to think about ?" Read this without attitudes like that, and without preconceptions, or don't bother reading it and don't bother telling me what you think of it.
What kind of state are we in when I even need to say things like this ? No wonder they're still getting away with it seven years later, when the opposition is clogged with status and prejudice and egotism and that's assuming they are an opposition, which in many cases would be a daft assumption. "We" are plagued not just by grovellers for official approval but by out-and-out fakes, infiltrating the other side and using techniques perfected over centuries of experience to subvert and distort and distract and time-waste, and the only reason they can is because folk who should know better, who should be able to pick them out a mile away by now, let them. Some folk accuse me of being a disinformationist. Make up your own mind, the same way you read the article : trust nobody including me ; don't be a mug ; use your brain.
==========================================================================================
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 and Hanlon), email me at lesraphael@googlemail.com . To phone or text : (00 44) 07972 503
836.
|
