9/11 FILM WAS STAGED

At 8:46 a.m. on September 11, 2001, at the junction of Church and Lispenard Streets in Manhattan, one of two French film-making brothers, Jules Naudet, was filming a group of firemen from Ladder 1, Engine 7 (100 Duane Street), checking for an alleged suspected gas leak, when he captured what was then thought to be unique footage of American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston flying into the north tower of the World Trade Center.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Here is a link to a CNN excerpt from this footage, somewhat stretched vertically, thru the formation of the stalked tan-gray mushroom cloud:
http://tinyurl.com/6zx44
aka
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/first.plane.hits.gp.med.html]

Two years later - the delay still not satisfactorily explained - a Czech immigrant, Pavel Hlava, produced his own video film of the event, shot from much farther away, at the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. The Naudet film, with its tail-on view of the plane hitting its target, is still by far our best, if no longer only, film record.

Naudet claims his film exists because of pure luck, as would have to be the case, given that this was the first attack of the whole 9/11 sequence, and was totally unexpected. When United Airlines Flight 175 flew into the South Tower twenty minutes later, it was captured by many photographers, because of the earlier attack on its neighbour - but how else could that first attack have been filmed, than by luck?

The answer to that question is extremely uncomfortable. I believe that the Naudet film of Flight 11 is an elaborate charade - a staged provocation. I believe that those who had the effrontery to carry out these attacks, and lay the blame elsewhere, also had the effrontery to film the first attack for propaganda purposes, passing it off as the product of luck, complete with a contrived cover story - the one told in the Naudet film, involving the gas leak and the documentary about firemen.

The second plane would have been filmed, but the idea of having "accidental" film of the first one as well was obviously too good to resist. Unfortunately, this film could not possibly have been shot by accident. Quite simply, it is too convenient, in too many ways: it must have been pre-arranged, by people who had advance, inside knowledge of that morning's events; anyone who doubts this claim has to explain how luck could have brought about all the 54 conveniences in my list - every single one of them. If it was as simple as 1. right place, 2. right time and 3. camera, I would be quite happy to believe there was nothing suspect about the film. I might even accept half a dozen pieces of luck - or ten - but not 54. That is not luck.

After considering the full list, refer to Maps 1 and 2, and consider the proposition in reverse assuming foreknowledge that a jet was going to fly into the top of the north face of the north tower of the World Trade Center, where would be the best location to get the best possible film of it happening, that could plausibly - at first sight - be attributed to luck?

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Maps (1 and 2) will be uploaded later.]

Anywhere south of the tower can obviously be excluded, with no view of the impact - and Naudet was not south of the tower. Nor was he due east or west, which would give him only a side view: also excluded. West of the flight path can also be written off, because it would involve looking and filming towards the sun at that time of day. The only suitable direction from the tower would be to the northeast - where, conveniently, Naudet was. But that is just the beginning.

This plane would be flying at about 450 miles an hour - roughly half a mile in five seconds. So, if we need at least five seconds to capture it on film after hearing its sound cue, the location would have to be at least half a mile from the tower. Conversely, being too far away would be no better than being too close, to get the plane in reasonable detail - without zooming in on it in flight, which would be too risky.

The location would also have to be not too far east from the plane, or the cover story about being alerted to it by its noise might not be credible: how far would plane noise carry, above traffic and other distractions? Overall, the best area - roughly - would be the one marked inside the curve in Map 1 - which includes Naudet's position: neither too near the tower nor too far, close enough to the plane, and away from the sun.

Having identified the right general area, by eliminating everywhere else, we can now refine the location - see Map 2. Filming from inside a building or a vehicle can be excluded: it has to be on the street, and at that distance from the tower - more than half a mile - east-west streets would have to be excluded, since even from their north side, buildings on the south might well hide the Trade Center, and filming through any gap between buildings might look suspect.

But not filming down a north-south street, and the three best, if not only, possibilities - the ones closest to the plane - are numbered on the map, showing their paths south of Canal Street. The part of Broadway south of Canal Street might be suitable, being the right distance from the tower, if a little far away from the plane for comfort; unfortunately, the tower is totally invisible, because of the 550-foot AT&T "Long Lines" Building (B on map), which blocks the view until well north of Canal Street - the "blind" area shown shaded.

Further south down Broadway might be possible, but would involve cutting the filming time. West Broadway below Canal Street might be suitable but for the similar intervention of the 370-foot Western Union Building (A on map). Although it might be possible, further towards Canal Street, to see the top of the Trade Center, the problem with West Broadway is the opposite of Broadway: too much visibility - it would be too near the plane. When to start filming this plane, when it was flying past almost overhead at 450 miles an hour, without blurring the image? Would it be possible to get clear film, tracking a plane at that speed, that close to it?

West Broadway and Broadway have to be rejected, but the third candidate - Church Street - not only has no problem of view blockage, except from its own buildings on the west side, but also, the size of one of those buildings, unlike the other two, can be turned to the photographer's advantage: the AT&T Building. Both the other buildings could have been used to hide the plane, rather than the tower, but are too near the tower to credibly allow time to film.

The AT&T Building allows seven seconds, during most of which - from the right position in the street - the plane would be hidden behind it, solving the tracking problem: by the time it reemerged at the south end, what little was left of the plane's flight could be condensed into one stationary frame, with plane and target only 20 degrees apart. How probable is it that the only photographer in Manhattan to capture the event as conveniently as this could have been in the only location in Manhattan where it could have been achieved - on the right side of the right street, facing the right building, etc. etc.? There is nothing wrong with this film. The plane could have been clearer - but how?

Every scenario has problems. This film has no problems - except that one. It's too good to be true - because it's not: it's a fraud - not just a record of mass murder, but complicit in it.

1. The photographer is outside, not - like most people in Manhattan at any given time - in a building (like the firehouse he was in 15 minutes before) nor in a vehicle (like the car he was in 5 minutes before).

2. He is in the middle of the street, not on a pavement, with the risk of pedestrians walking in front of the camera, jostling, etc.

3. He is at a crossroads with a view of the Twin Towers, not - for example - further up Lispenard street, with the 450foot-tall AT&T Building in front of his, blocking the south view (a 20-foot building would do it, if he was on the pavement in front of it).

4. He has a camcorder with him, unlike the overwhelming majority of people - even professional photographers don't always have their equipment with them.

5. He is already filming with it when the plane appears, when he might still have had to switch it on, load a tape, etc.

6. The group are all standing still, unlike most New York pedestrians - even firemen - who tend to be going somewhere.

7. The gas leak has just been "wrapped up" seconds before the plane appears, and nothing of any importance happens in the interim, which allows the photographer to immediately switch to filming the new subject. (Was there ever a gas leak? We don't even get the answer: who cares? It's a pretext - forget the gas leak - look at that plane! There's a nasty smell in the Naudet film, but it's not coming from a gas leak.)

8. The plane flies alongside the next street west, when it could have been 20 streets away - but would they have heard it ?

9. The cameraman is already filming westwards - directly towards the plane's closest approach to his (about 250 metres away) - before it even arrives. This makes it easier to capture on film when it does arrive, by simply waiting for it to pass its closest point, before panning left. The plane could have turned up behind him, or at an awkward angle, rather than passing straight in front, from right to left, north to south.

10. The plane's closest point is where it is most difficult to film: the cameraman does not attempt to film its flight until it passes that point, and is flying away from him - much easier to film than flying towards him, at that speed, that close.

11. The plane is flying horizontally, in a straight line, making its direction easier to follow, when it could have been turning, or flying in circles, or climbing, or falling.

12. The gas leak call is at 8:30, putting the group on location at the right time, when it might have been ten minutes earlier, and by 8:45 they would have been back down on Duane street, having dealt with it, or ten minutes later, and they would still been driving up Church Street when the plane passed, heading in the opposite direction.

13. The call (which was not filmed, despite the cameraman being at the firehouse when it came in) is about a gas leak, when it sight have been about a fire - but would the cameraman have been able to film the plane if he was filming a fire, with noise, smoke and danger?

14. The cameraman is not troubled by traffic any more than by pedestrians: the junction has been blocked with fire vehicles.

Traffic could have obstructed the filming, the sound of the plane, or both.

15. At a junction of two one-way streets where the northwards street has been blocked, the cameraman only has to worry about traffic cowing from one direction - the one he is filming towards.

16. That direction is west - with the sun behind him. The film shows views in all directions - except east: he wants to avoid turning his back to the flight path, and filming towards the sun can be problematical, so the plane's position in relation to his is very convenient.

17. The cameraman is with a group of firemen of all people, just as one of the most disastrous fires in American history breaks out, when he could have been with, for example, a group of office workers in, for example, the World Trade center.

18. He manages to record a plane actually crashing -incredibly rare, if not unique - when no-one captured either Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon or Flight 93 crashing in Pennsylvania later that morning, or for example - the crash in Queens two months after 9/11, or the crash of a DC-8 in Brooklyn in 1960.

19. When the plane passes, he isn't - as shown earlier in the film - kneeling in the street filming firemen hiding the Twin Towers, or else they would have blocked the view.

20. He isn't - also as shown earlier in the film - filming towards the ground when the plane passes, or capturing the plane would have been far more difficult.

21. He is standing stationary, undistracted, and facing the subject when the plane passes, when he could have been kneeling, talking, concentrating on filming something important, or with his back to the subject.

22. He is filming two men facing him when the plane arrives behind them,
but they are doing nothing worth filming: if they had been, it would have
been a distraction; but if not, why film them?

[EDITOR'S NOTE: We call this moment THE SEVEN-SECOND STALL, between
when they stop waving the gas-smelling instrument and when they
start reacting to the sound of the "airliner." Chief Pfeifer takes
no interest in the actual READINGS on his electronic wand, as he
fiddles idly with it without looking at it, and as he sticks his
hand in his pocket, and as he stares blankly around. Also, is it
really standard FDNY procedure to walk out directly ONTO a street
grate when you think a leak of EXPLOSIVE GAS might be occurring
right below?]

23. No-one in the film distracts the cameraman's attention by talking to him, and the cameraman's own voice is never heard. Voices close to the camcorder microphone could even have drowned out the plane. The firemen might have noticed it, but would the cameraman?

24. He has no view of the south or west sides of the North Tower, and only a distorted view of the top third of the east side. The only part of the building he has a clear, direct view of is the top third of the north face - less than 10% of the whole tower surface. When the plane's impact could have been on any side of the building, down to at least the 50th floor - well over 50% of the tower's exterior surface - most of it hidden from the cameraman - how convenient that it should be in the middle of the only 10% he has a clear view of, on the face closest to him.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Also, the impact point occurs at almost the EXACT MIDPOINT of the SHOT. The exact midpoint of the shot is: the lowest visible point of the Tower 1 antenna. This exact midpoint of the shot is only SLIGHTLY higher and VERY slightly left of the impact point. If we think of the cameraman's AIM as a DART, then his up-left pan was a BULLSEYE THROW.]

25. He calculates the point where the plane reappears so precisely - left and up simultaneously - rather than left and then up, wasting time - that no adjustment is required, up or down, left or right, when he might have overshot, or undershot, or had to raise or lower the camera, blurring the picture and ruining the impact shot.

26. He films a plane flying at 400 m.p.h. with a stationary camera, when most photographers would have to move the camera - and/or themselves - to track a plane in motion. In this film, the camera motion stops when the plane motion starts. Most film of planes has both together.

27. He manages this feat by having a 450-foot building hiding the plane until it is far enough away to film from almost straight behind it, with plane and target so close together that it disguises the fact that the focus of the film is the target, not the plane about to hit it.

28. He telescopes a plane flying half a mile into an angle of 20 degrees, between its reappearance at the south-east corner of the AT&T Building and the impact point on the North Tower: the last few seconds of a 46-minute flight, condensed to an eighteenth of a full circle, before the plane hits the only twelfth of the building clearly visible to the only cameraman in Manhattan to record it happening.

29. He could have been at the Duane Street firehouse, but filming the plane would have been far more difficult, with only two seconds' warning, and, being much closer to the tower, having to swing the camera right up to the top 20 floors - even if he had been outside to film it.

30. He could have been on West Broadway, but the plane would have been just about overhead, with no AT&T Building providing an excuse for not even attempting to track it in motion.

31. He could have attempted to zoom in on the plane before it hit its target, but might have lost it with the tiniest camera motion magnified, and missed the impact shot, or blurred it.

32. He is standing on the same spot when the plane hits the building, three quarters of a mile away, as when it almost flew over his head ten seconds before, when he might have had to walk, or at least lean - more than just pan 90 degrees - to capture an object that had moved that distance at that speed.

33. Between the sound warning and the impact, he has a convenient seven seconds to capture the event, when it might only have been two - or gone on for seventy, if, for example, the plane had flown around the target and come back for the collision - as the Pentagon plane did later.

34. The plane's flight is horizontal, and low enough to allow the engine noise to be heard on the ground, when it could have targeted the tower diagonally downwards, and been inaudible until the last couple of seconds.

35. He has a completely unobstructed view of the small part of the tower that he could see, when there might have been other buildings or street furniture in the way - like the traffic lights at the corner across from him, which appear much higher in the zoom-in after the impact, from further down the street.

36. He - and the firemen, and the alleged gas leak - could have been on the west side of church street, but the towers would have been totally hidden behind the AT&T Building, making capturing the plane virtually impossible.

37. The gas leak could have been inside a building, but was out on the street.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Also the odor-of-gas call could have gone to the GAS COMPANY, instead of to the fire department -- but the Naudets were not making a documentary about the gas company.]

38. The pan is only 90 degrees, when it right have been 180 or more - if, for example, he had been facing east, and swung around anti-clockwise, towards the firemen, increasing the risk of blurring the picture.

39. All the firemen are standing in front of him or on his right when the plane passes, when they, or one of them, could have been on his left blocking his view of the impact.

40. The phone call wasn't, like 40% of those received by FNDY, a hoax call, or the firemen would have left the scene before the plane arrived.

41. The gas leak is dealt with before the plane turns up. If the plane had turned up just as they arrived at the intersection, it would look premature, and suspiciously convenient - even more convenient than having Subject A dealt with first, before subject B. In real life, subject B would interrupt, not wait for an earlier subject to end.
42. He could have captured 10 seconds of the flight, but not the last 10 seconds; he could have filmed the 10 seconds before the last 10 but then lost view of the tower; that did not happen.

43. If you wanted to arrange film of the impact, a photographer to the north of the tower would be needed; this photographer is to the north.
44. He would have to be not too close, to get a proper view of the top of the tower - and to avoid danger - but not so far away he had no view at all. This photographer is just the right distance - about 1,300 yards.

45. He would have to be quite close to the plane, so as to hear the engine noise above sounds closer to him - music, traffic, etc. This photographer was one street away from the plane, at a crossroads with no moving traffic - but two parked fire trucks, either capable of burying plane noise.

46. He would need to avoid tracking the plane in motion, so as to record the impact clearly; his pan left means he blurs only the building, not the plane, and the entire recorded flight in this film is contained in one stationary frame.

47. He would want to visually condense the flight to the minimum so as to avoid camera motion - the best way being to get right behind the plane; this film is shot from right behind the plane, with the visible flight condensed to 20 degrees.

48. He would want to leave out all of the flight but the last few seconds - the rest of the flight would be an irrelevance or a distraction, and only the impact needs to be captured; he films only the last few seconds.

49. He would want to leave out most of the tower, and only capture the area of the impact - the rest of the tower would only take up valuable filming space, nothing is happening there, and if anything did, it could be a distraction, or an obstacle to filming; only the top third of the north face is visible in the film, the rest of the building being hidden behind others: the plane hits that very part of that face.

50. He would need to have some photographic experience, when no amateur could capture a scene like this, involving a sudden, fast, perfectly-judged 90-degree pan; the cameraman and his brother are documentary film-makers, jointly credited for cinematography in their only previous film.

[the title of which is Hope, Gloves and Redemption - Editor]

51. He would need a cover story as a pretext for being in the right place at the right time to capture the plane; the documentary film about firemen and the gas leak at that intersection provide a plausible pretext - on first appearances.

52. His film was about firemen, when if he had been filming boxers, as in his previous film, then they would not be out in the street first thing in the morning, they would not have the right to block road traffic at an intersection, they would not be able to provide instant transport down to the tower after the first impact, nor the authority to enter the building, etc. etc.

53. Since he already has a perfect view of the target from where he is, he could have captured the impact without having to pan left at all, but it would look suspect if he was filming the target just as the plane appeared in shot; the camera motion suggests unpreparedness - although the perfect motion and the perfect view at the end of it destroy that suggestion.

54. If just one of these 53 circumstances had not applied, this film might easily not exist; how probable is it that every one applied, and not one went wrong? And that not one other person in Manhattan managed even one of the 53, to produce even an off-center, blurred monochrome photograph of the event, let alone a perfect color film of it? A unique film might be credible, if it had faults: or, conversely, a perfect one, if there were others less perfect. How likely is achieving both uniqueness and perfection?

EDITOR'S POSTSCRIPT:
Interesting photo of the three co-directors, from left, Gedeon Naudet, James Hanlon, Jules Naudet:

Three 9/11 Ghouls Revisit Their Crime Scene.
Or to be precise, the scene where they committed the crime of filming, for propaganda purposes, their bosses' opening attack on 9/11. They are posing at CHURCH AND LISPENARD, THE SAME INTERSECTION WHERE JULES TOOK THE FAMOUS FIRST-HIT FOOTAGE. As we look at these three ghouls we are facing south on Church St., same as Jules' camera was facing when filming the first hit. The Twin Towers used to be up ahead in the background, where there is now only empty sky.

Hanlon, in the center, is the Fireman/Narrator/Co-Director who also just happens to be a PROFESSIONAL TV ACTOR since 1995.

Gedeon, on the left, seems to have been the cameraman behind the incriminating "BRAVE-NEW-WORLD" footage, which was ALSO shot at the moment of the first hit. Click First Moment of a Brave New World at
http://911foreknowledge.com.