"Jules Naudet's First Plane Shot was Staged"

[Anthony Lawson]

Most of the above is garbage.

The topic heading is in quotes, and the quote comes from an article which contains nothing factual; it is pure speculation, and does not even offer any explanation as to why “…the shot was arranged in advance.”

The original writer seems to be almost hysterical, in his assertions that the impact could not have been captured by chance. Check this: “…no-one in the entire history of photography, since its invention in 1826 by another Frenchman, Nicéphore Niépce, has produced an image like the Naudet film of American Airlines Flight 11.”

Well, aeroplanes don’t often fly into tall buildings, but photographing the back of President Kennedy’s head being shot off gets pretty close (Abraham Zapruder, 22nd November, 1963), and the Hindenburg going down in flames (May 6, 1937) gets even closer, it was, after all, an aircraft.

Other horrible things have been filmed, videotaped or photographed because someone had a camera in their hands at a particular moment. What about the little Vietnamese girl on fire, following an American napalm attack? or the Vietcong soldier being executed with a pistol? or the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows suspension bridge, with cars falling off it.

These days there are cameras around us all the time, and there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the Naudet brothers were not simply going about the business of making a documentary when their sharp-eared cameraman swung around and caught the impact on the North Tower. It is the kind of thing that happens rarely, but it is still the kind of thing that documentary camera operators are likely to catch, because they have to be aware of what is going on around them.

I’ll tell you what, as a former cameraman myself, when you are filming on city streets, and you’ve got one eye glued to the viewfinder, your other one closed, and you are wearing headphones to see what the sound man is getting, your ears are very finely tuned, because you are vulnerable. Even with barriers and policemen holding up the traffic, there is no guarantee that some idiot driver isn’t going to be looking at what you are photographing, and drive into you in the process. It is not as uncommon as an aircraft flying into a building, but it happens.

There is no earthly reason to suppose that the cameraman (said to be Jules Naudet) did not react to the sound of the jets, realise that he wasn’t the target, and spin his camera around to see if he could capture what was happening. You can call it what you like, but you cannot call it foreknowledge unless you’ve got some evidence. And I don’t think any of you have.

But back to the supposed motive and the excellence, or otherwise, of the execution. Think about the other implications. Let’s say that the Naudet brothers were put into the ‘loop’ by a person or person’s unknown, to be sure that the impact was recorded on at least one camera, for all the world to see.

Did they get it right? Was the camera zoom perfect? It would need to be just close enough to see that an aircraft had hit the building, but not so close to see that it had no windows, or that it had a lump under it (like the other one did) for example. But what about the flash? Was that supposed to have been visible, or not? If it wasn’t why was that particular camera position chosen?

Yet the flash is visible, which would surely go against the brief: “We want people to think that the building came down because it was hit by an aeroplane, not that the aeroplane shot something into it.”

Such a brief giver might well have added: “Seeing the flash will give the whole game away, because no one is going to believe that Osama bin Laden nicked those planes from Edwards Air Force base, or wherever.” But, as it transpires, he would have been wrong, because these flashes have been ignored for so long, by so many, including the 9/11 Commission.

But why choose the Naudet brothers, in the first place? Foreigners, for God’s sake! Why not some All-American CIA or FBI undercover agent, videotaping the WTC while posing as a tourist? A far better way to ensure that you get exactly what you want, and leave out the embarrassing bits that shouldn’t be visible. Here’s how:

Without the encumbrance of firemen, and having to pretend that he is doing something else, you get your guy to pick a spot which just obscures the actual face of the building which is going to take the hit, and pick a zoom position which will ensure that the windows (if there had been any) on the plane would not show up, because of the low resolution. (The right zoom position would be easy to work out, by taking a few shots of planes landing or taking off.)

Action! When the plane is heard, the zoom position is already fixed and the camera is running, and the “tourist” tilts up the building just in time to see the plane enter the frame, only to be partially obscured by the corner of the building, so that the flash cannot be seen; the flames and smoke ensuring that there can be no doubt that the plane hit the building.

Far easier and less risky than involving foreign documentary makers, wouldn’t you say?

Finally, “thought criminal” has recently posted a link with the forum heading:

Naudet Brothers Admit 9/11 Complicity

There is nothing in this post, other than a link to an item on U-Tube, which is currently blocked in Thailand, so I would be interested to know if the linked item gives any solid proof that thought criminal’s headline is accurate.

If not, the post should be deleted and its poster banned.

[Ray Ubinger]

[Anthony Lawson]

Complicity or Coincidence?

How many enabling circumstances do you think led to your birth, Mr Ubinger? Or would you call them natural or normal events?

A “list of facts 69 long, about the enabling circumstances of the shot” proves nothing other than that the Naudet brothers were where they were on 9/11. Anyone who thinks they have found some sinister connotation hasn’t thought things through. Which seems to includes you. You could go right back to the day that the couple who were to become the Naudet brother’s parents met, or even further, and anything with any kind of connection which led to their births could be described as enabling circumstances. Do you think that Monsieur and Madame Naudet were responsible for their sons being in New York, on 9/11? Of course they were. How dreadful!

I used to film a lot, in Paris, with French crews, maybe the brothers saw me there, and thought: ‘That looks like a fun thing to do.’ (which it was), and decided to become film makers. Would that make me complicit, too?

Your passed-on comment about making a 'snuff' film I will treat with the contempt it deserves, except to say that you should be ashamed of yourself.

With regard to one of the mainstays of your borrowed argument: The shot may have been captured UNIQUELY, but I would dispute the claim that it was caught PERFECTLY.

[Ray Ubinger]

[Anthony Lawson]

Go away and find some Proof.

[Ray Ubinger]

[Anthony Lawson]

Still no Solid Evidence or any Proof

I’ve already explained that documentary crews often have two cameras, sometimes more, and that it is impossible to determine why the gas-leak/no gas-leak sequence ended up in the documentary in the form that it did. If you really think that the chief’s apparent contradiction about the gas leak could have any bearing on whether or not the Naudet brothers were in the loop, then nothing that I could write would be likely to change your mind. The same goes for your next point about where Pavel was, or was not.

However, here is an analysis of some of the absurd extrapolations contained in http://911foreknowledge.com/judge.htm

[les raphael]

From : les raphael
Wed 18 Apr 07
To address Anthony Lawson's points, as someone being accused of hysterical garbage :
1. If you bothered reading my article, you'd see that I refer to the Naudet shot of Flight 11 being unique because there are no other examples, to my knowledge - and you certainly don't offer any - of a world-shattering event being captured BY ACCIDENT. The Zapruder film, which I mention in my article, was NOT accidental - Zapruder was there to film Kennedy, and that's what he did. He wasn't there to film an assassination, but it happened to his SUBJECT. The Hindenburg - also mentioned in my article - was likewise NOT an accidental film : it was a major public event, and the tragedy happened while the airship was being filmed, like Kennedy, as a predetermined SUBJECT. The World Trade Center was NOT the subject of the film Naudet was making - they say that in the film. Zapruder and the Hindenburg are NOT COMPARABLE to Naudet. Nor is the Vietnamese girl on fire, or the man being shot by the Vietnamese police chief - those were not world-shattering events. They are NOT comparable. They didn't START a war - they happened DURING one - that's why they were filmed. There was no war going on in Church Street on the morning of September 11 2001 - and, as I point out in my article, nobody was expecting a President or an airship. As for the bridge that collapsed, that had been wobbling for quite some time before it collapsed - it was hardly unexpected. Nor, again, was it world-shattering. I'm not discussing film of something "horrible" - I'm discussing film of an event that changed the world : I say that in the article. There is nothing analogous in the history of photography, and I stand by my claim.
2. David Attenborough has publicly admitted faking some scenes in his programmes - which shows how much you know about the subject you claim, unlike me, to be expert on. Time-lapse shots, for instance, are a common feature - and that's fakery - and they're never identified as time- lapse. Attenborough claims to be unconcerned about being less than 100% authentic - but that's a debate for elsewhere. Maybe you'd like to discuss it with him ? If you're trying to suggest it's ridiculous to question documentary film, I'd have to disagree. I think it's perfectly healthy to be sceptical about everything we see and hear and read, and generally to exercise the old brain cells, and encourage other folk to do it. Maybe you think we should just accept everything that's dished up to us, and be bloody grateful for it. No thanks - not in a world run by chronic, pathological liars like Bush and Blair - and not with a fairytale like 9/11.
"Turbanned Evil Mastermind Bombs Pentagon, Trade Center Shock Horror." A headline for wrapping chips in (that's "fries" for US readers).
3. "Proof" ? Are you aware - something else, yet again, pointed out in my article - that not one person in this world is currently serving a jail sentence because they have been PROVED in a court to have had any direct responsibility for the mass murders of 9/11 ? The official story of the 19 hijackers, Osama Bin Ladin, etc, has NEVER been put to a jury's verdict. Try addressing your demand for proof to G.W. Bush, A.C.L. Blair and company. No doubt, on past performance, you'll tell me about Zacarias Moussaoui, etc : try reading my "9/11 Convictions" chapter, and note that I use my words very carefully, like a lawyer - because I know they're important, and I don't want to be accused of dishonesty by folk who DON'T care about the importance of words, and facts, as much as I do. Moussaoui pled guilty : there was no trial. No jury ever decided he was guilty - no evidence was ever put to them. Read the details of the other cases, and tell me I'm wrong, on any particular. The official conspiracy theory is just as unproved - in a court - as all the others. The Kean Report has NO LEGAL STATUS - the guy wasn't even a Judge, like Earl Warren. Judicial process establishes what happened when a crime was committed, and that has not yet begun with the 9/11 crime. Tell Bush and Blair to prove THEIR case : if you think they already have done, explain to me how. They've no more proved their 9/11 case than they did their Iraq one : TWO giant lies.
4. Take care filming in traffic - I'd hate to hear of you having an accident - and I mean that most sincerely, as Hughie Green used to say. The reason it didn't happen to Naudet at that junction is that they'd taken the precaution of blocking the street : just in case a dirty great lorry drove up Church Street in front of him just as the plane passed. But that's speculation, as you would say. Or, as I would say, it's using your brain, when trying to analyse why Naudet achieved what no other photographer in New York did, and then went on to produce hours more film, with his brother, with yet more miracles and more manufactured, artificial, dishonest drama added to the real stuff.
5. Your comments about zoom and a "flash" etc etc have no bearing on what's in my article. Naudet didn't zoom in until AFTER the impact - AFTER the plane entered the building. Have you even watched the film you're writing about ? I don't discuss any flash anywhere in my article, or any "lump" or "pod," or any lack of windows, or a missile being shot by the plane, because I don't accept any of those theories.
6. Why stage the film ? Again, it's in the article : propaganda. There are two sides in a war - and propaganda is a tool for everybody. You appear to be unaware that the attack on the USS Cole included a plan to videotape it from the shore - if the guy hadn't allegedly slept in. If Al Qaeda are aware of the importance of propaganda video, why wouldn't the US Government, which has in fact been using film propaganda for decades ? Except that, when they're filming something they don't want the credit for, they obviously want to get as far from claiming responsibility as they can - like using a pair of French immigrants, for example - which answers your other point. Or an avant-garde German artist - or a Czech tourist. All three shot the first plane - but only Naudet filmed the impact. Read the article.
7. I know nothing about "thought criminal" - I use my real name, and always have done on the Internet - and nothing about any admission by the Naudets. I can't answer that question.
8. My list of conveniences - to be taken CUMULATIVELY, not individually - all refer to the circumstances applying to the film shot that morning, at that junction, allegedly by Jules Naudet. Your attempt to bring his parents, or Ray Ubinger's, into it is frankly ridiculous. Do you know what the odds are of both Naudet only being able to properly see the top third of the north face of the North Tower, and the plane hitting the top third of the north face of the North Tower ? Presuming we exclude the bottom third of that face, because of the No. 7 building in front of it - and presuming Naudet could have seen all the rest of the tower, divided into three parts on each side - and the plane could have hit any part - which it could : that works out at 11 times 11. The odds are 1 in 121. That's a mathematical FACT. If you want to challenge it, I'll give you the full breakdown of the permutations, and why the calculation is totally valid. That's just ONE of my 69 conveniences. He was facing the plane as it passed, not standing with his back to it : two options - double 1-in-121. He was on the east side of the street, not the west, where the towers were hidden from view : two options - double the previous. There was no moving traffic, when there could have been : two options - double it again. There were no firemen between him and the tower when the plane hit it, when he could have had a view like Picture 1a in my Appendix 4 : two options - double it again. These things are exactly the same as picking the right cards out of a pack - one piece of luck, multiplied by another one, multiplied by another one. The more pieces of luck you get, the more unlikely it is. If you get the right one of two options ten times in a row, you're doing well - the odds of that happening are 1 in a million. Tell me what's invalid about applying that principle to the Naudet film. Naudet himself - and other people discussing the shot - feel the need to admit it's an incredibly lucky piece of film. I just happen to think the word "incredibly" should be taken literally, and I've given a ton of reasons why in my article.
Anybody trying to capture something that sudden, that fast, that unexpected, needs a LOT of luck to achieve it - unless you want to argue with that proposition : maybe you think there's nothing so remarkable about filming, at street level, a Boeing 767 flying at full speed over a city full of skyscrapers, coming within 250 yards of you at its closest ? I do hope you're not suggesting that, because that would make writing this a total waste of my precious time. You have to examine the circumstances of the Naudet shot, to see how he managed to do something nobody else did, and there are a lot of imponderables involved, because of those circumstances - above all, speed, suddenness and brevity. And if you examine them, you get luck after luck after luck after luck after luck, ad infinitum - it's totally ridiculous. It's not just being in the right place at the right time. He has to be in EXACTLY the right place : he has to be on the east side of Church Street - it's impossible from the other side. He has to have a view of the face of the building the plane hits - it could have hit east, or west, or south - why not ? He has to have a view of the part of that face the plane hit - 15 floors from the top. That's right in the MIDDLE of the ONLY part he can see properly. I fail to see how pointing these things out qualifies as reading too much into it : I'm just stating the bleeding obvious. He can't be in a car or a vehicle ; the subjects he's filming when the plane turns up can't be walking about (nor can he), or talking to him, or making a loud noise, or driving, or standing between him and the tower - and they're doing none of these things. If they had been, we might not have the film. ONE thing - ONE wrong circumstance, out of the dozens of factors involved in capturing a shot like that - that's all it would have taken to totally screw it up. NOTHING went wrong. EVERYTHING fitted Naudet's needs.
That's not how things happen in real life, and I am not apologising for saying it. You could be a photographer for 100 years, and never produce a shot remotely like it. If you ever film something that changes history, that lasts ten seconds maximum, by a complete fluke, when it has nothing whatever to do with what you were filming before it happened, let me know about it - and I'll scrap my Naudet article the same day. Or if you can even come up with the name of another photographer who's ever done that. Quote me another example of a piece of fluke filming - or you could always concede that I'm in the right about this. Or here's another challenge : go to New York, find a building over 500 feet tall and photograph it from the street next door, three quarters of a mile away, with the top third of it right in the centre of the sides of the street you're in. That's what's in the Naudet first plane shot. Do that, and I'll be suitably impressed. If this guy wasn't unbelievably lucky to manage what he did, explain to me why we don't have 20 films of that plane flying into that building. My explanation is that other photographers didn't have his inside information. I'm not aware of a single other person in New York who even ATTEMPTED to film it, but failed. Pavel Hlava was on the wrong side for the impact, and Wolfgang Staehle wasn't shooting moving footage. Those two examples just prove the case about Naudet : he WAS on the right side, and he WAS shooting video - and 67 other pieces of "luck."
If Naudet had been further north in Manhattan, and snatched a shot of the plane roaring past near the Empire State Building for a few seconds, I wouldn't be writing this - I'd accept it as authentic. The plane took quite a while flying down over Manhattan, and it could have been filmed at any point along that route : how credible is it that the only person who captured ANY of its flight, from Boston onwards, got the LAST TWO SECONDS - and ONLY that ? The most important part of its flight - the whole point of the flight, to the alleged hijackers. If the plane hadn't hit the building, who'd be interested in a film of it ? It's the ONLY part of the flight we DO have film of. Not only that, Naudet COULD only have filmed the very end of the flight, with the AT&T Building blocking several seconds before it - and he didn't attempt, for perfectly obvious reasons, to film it as it flew towards him. Don't they have photographers north of Canal Street ? They don't seem to have them in the Lower East Side, either - or in New Jersey across the river - because nobody filmed it from any of these places. Nobody filmed it from Central Park, or Harlem, or where James Hanlon comes from, the Bronx ; nobody filmed it as it flew over Indian Point Nuclear Power Station (which some say would have made a more credible target, if maximum death was the intention). But this guy just happens to be in the perfect place to grab the LAST TWO SECONDS - and he gets it with the towers right in the centre of the picture, and the impact right in the centre of the only part of the tower he has a clear view of - and some folk are such hopeless cases they think they can seriously tell me there's nothing suspect about any of it. It's a pain having to deal with mindlessness on that scale. I know brick walls aren't capable of rational debate, but people are meant to be.
9. "Gone through the motions" : yet again, as stated in my article - you really should read it - I have been personally assured by someone who worked on editing the Naudet film that there were no reconstructions in it - "or anything like that." It's all totally authentic - all shot exactly as it happened, in that sequence, first take, no repeats, no fiddling about, no fakery, no nonsense. Maybe you can explain Shot 20a in Appendix 4, where alleged firemen are looking west down Duane St, apparently trying to see No. 7 coming down, or some sign of it. It's like one of those old "What's wrong with this picture ?" things from the 1950s. In this case, the answer is that these guys are trying to perform the impossible. Check the map of Manhattan (Section 4), make sure your brain's in gear, and try to figure out how it might be possible to see WTC No. 7 by looking west down Duane St. Save your breath - it's not, and the picture's a nonsense - and so are what these guys are doing. Any suggestions as to why they might be doing it ? Why are they insulting the intelligence of anyone in the audience who knows that's Duane St, and where No. 7 was (and its replacement still is), and that you couldn't ever see ANY of the Trade Center buildings by looking where those firemen are ? Why is this insulting rubbish in a film you say was made by innocents ? It's FRAUDULENT - it's FAKE - and it's not remotely the only example of that in the film. READ MY ARTICLE. Yes, I do know what was going on in this film : I know what I've been told by somebody who worked on it, and what I've read in reviews, and from the fact that it won totally undeserved Emmy and Peabody awards. That it's a genuine, authentic documentary, with no fakery in it. I've just given you an example of a particularly blatant piece of fakery - far more blatant than the Flight 11 shot. What have you got to say for yourself ?
10. People have been executed in this country - and still are in the USA - on circumstantial evidence alone, and there's plenty of that in the Naudet film and in my article. I don't know what you'd accept as "proof" - a signed confession, maybe ? - but I have not the slightest intention of giving up writing about the Naudets until you or anyone else comes up with one cogent reason why I should, something in which you have so far miserably failed.
Go away yourself, read the article, watch the film, do your homework, and come back when you've found some arguments worth discussing at anything like this length.
Les Raphael

[blackcat]

Hughie Greene? You are quoting Hughie Greene!!!!!!

[KP50]

I am sort of ambivalent on this one as

1. I do believe the Naudet's film was staged. There was no way they were going to fly a plane into the WTC and not have a camera to record the event. The fact that it was a crew with the fire department just meant they could cover all bases with regards to recording the event.

2. Which leads me to my next point. It was a real plane, however you try to slice and dice the footage.

3. Which is why I believe no plane hit the Pentagon. If one had, you can be pretty sure there would have been a documentary maker on hand to record the event.

[Anthony Lawson]

Replying to Les Raphael’s post

Rather than extract quotes, I have copied the entire post, and added my comments, in bold.

To address Anthony Lawson's points, as someone being accused of hysterical garbage :

I did not accuse you of ‘hysterical garbage,’ in any of my earlier posts. Check it out. However, I can’t promise that, in these comments, I might not do so.

1. If you bothered reading my article, you'd see that I refer to the Naudet shot of Flight 11 being unique because there are no other examples, to my knowledge - and you certainly don't offer any - of a world-shattering event being captured BY ACCIDENT. The Zapruder film, which I mention in my article, was NOT accidental - Zapruder was there to film Kennedy, and that's what he did. He wasn't there to film an assassination, but it happened to his SUBJECT. The Hindenburg - also mentioned in my article - was likewise NOT an accidental film : it was a major public event, and the tragedy happened while the airship was being filmed, like Kennedy, as a predetermined SUBJECT. The World Trade Center was NOT the subject of the film Naudet was making - they say that in the film. Zapruder and the Hindenburg are NOT COMPARABLE to Naudet. Nor is the Vietnamese girl on fire, or the man being shot by the Vietnamese police chief - those were not world-shattering events. They are NOT comparable. They didn't START a war - they happened DURING one - that's why they were filmed. There was no war going on in Church Street on the morning of September 11 2001 - and, as I point out in my article, nobody was expecting a President or an airship. As for the bridge that collapsed, that had been wobbling for quite some time before it collapsed - it was hardly unexpected. Nor, again, was it world-shattering. I'm not discussing film of something "horrible" - I'm discussing film of an event that changed the world : I say that in the article. There is nothing analogous in the history of photography, and I stand by my claim.

I did read most of your article, but I concentrated on those sections that others were quoting. Stand by anything you like, Les, but that does not mean that anything you’ve written in (1) proves, or even gets near to proving that the Naudets were forewarned.

2. David Attenborough has publicly admitted faking some scenes in his programmes - which shows how much you know about the subject you claim, unlike me, to be expert on. Time-lapse shots, for instance, are a common feature - and that's fakery - and they're never identified as time- lapse. Attenborough claims to be unconcerned about being less than 100% authentic - but that's a debate for elsewhere. Maybe you'd like to discuss it with him ? If you're trying to suggest it's ridiculous to question documentary film, I'd have to disagree. I think it's perfectly healthy to be sceptical about everything we see and hear and read, and generally to exercise the old brain cells, and encourage other folk to do it. Maybe you think we should just accept everything that's dished up to us, and be bloody grateful for it. No thanks - not in a world run by chronic, pathological liars like Bush and Blair - and not with a fairytale like 9/11.

You make it sound as though David Attenborough has admitted to doing something wrong. He practically wrote the manual on wildlife and nature programmes, singe handed, and realises that people who are interested in such programmes accept, for example, that roses don’t open in three seconds. Time-lapse photography rarely needs identifying, but to say that they're never identified as time- lapse is ridiculously inaccurate.

"Turbanned Evil Mastermind Bombs Pentagon, Trade Center Shock Horror." A headline for wrapping chips in (that's "fries" for US readers).

3. "Proof" ? Are you aware - something else, yet again, pointed out in my article - that not one person in this world is currently serving a jail sentence because they have been PROVED in a court to have had any direct responsibility for the mass murders of 9/11 ? The official story of the 19 hijackers, Osama Bin Ladin, etc, has NEVER been put to a jury's verdict. Try addressing your demand for proof to G.W. Bush, A.C.L. Blair and company. No doubt, on past performance, you'll tell me about Zacarias Moussaoui, etc : try reading my "9/11 Convictions" chapter, and note that I use my words very carefully, like a lawyer - because I know they're important, and I don't want to be accused of dishonesty by folk who DON'T care about the importance of words, and facts, as much as I do. Moussaoui pled guilty : there was no trial. No jury ever decided he was guilty - no evidence was ever put to them. Read the details of the other cases, and tell me I'm wrong, on any particular. The official conspiracy theory is just as unproved - in a court - as all the others. The Kean Report has NO LEGAL STATUS - the guy wasn't even a Judge, like Earl Warren. Judicial process establishes what happened when a crime was committed, and that has not yet begun with the 9/11 crime. Tell Bush and Blair to prove THEIR case : if you think they already have done, explain to me how. They've no more proved their 9/11 case than they did their Iraq one : TWO giant lies.

Yes, I am aware of all of the above. Now, please tell me, which part advances your theory that the Naudet brothers were invited to film the aircraft hitting the North Tower?

4. Take care filming in traffic - I'd hate to hear of you having an accident - and I mean that most sincerely, as Hughie Green used to say. The reason it didn't happen to Naudet at that junction is that they'd taken the precaution of blocking the street : just in case a dirty great lorry drove up Church Street in front of him just as the plane passed. But that's speculation, as you would say. Or, as I would say, it's using your brain, when trying to analyse why Naudet achieved what no other photographer in New York did, and then went on to produce hours more film, with his brother, with yet more miracles and more manufactured, artificial, dishonest drama added to the real stuff.

Thank you for your concern, but my filming days are, sadly, long behind me. Where is your proof that there was more manufactured, artificial, dishonest drama added to the real stuff. In fact, toward the end of your post, you write:

- I have been personally assured by someone who worked on editing the Naudet film that there were no reconstructions in it - "or anything like that." It's all totally authentic - all shot exactly as it happened, in that sequence, first take, no repeats, no fiddling about, no fakery, no nonsense.

5. Your comments about zoom and a "flash" etc etc have no bearing on what's in my article. Naudet didn't zoom in until AFTER the impact - AFTER the plane entered the building. Have you even watched the film you're writing about ? I don't discuss any flash anywhere in my article, or any "lump" or "pod," or any lack of windows, or a missile being shot by the plane, because I don't accept any of those theories.

You may be right about the zoom, perhaps it was a change of focus (I haven’t time to check, right now). No, I have never seen a full copy of the Naudet brother’s video, but I have seen all of the shots which were originally written about in this topic, and a whole lot of other material. You may not discuss the flash, but this does not make it irrelevant, as you will see, if you ever reach the end of this post. The same goes for the lump or pods that can be clearly seen on the shots of the aircraft which hit the South Tower.

Your final statement, in this paragraph, is quite odd, because you don’t accept any of what you dismiss as ‘theories’ yet the flashes are visible and so is the pod on the South-Tower aircraft. Summed up, you’ve constructed a theory out of your ideas, but you reject what other people can actually see.

6. Why stage the film ? Again, it's in the article : propaganda. There are two sides in a war - and propaganda is a tool for everybody. You appear to be unaware that the attack on the USS Cole included a plan to videotape it from the shore - if the guy hadn't allegedly slept in. If Al Qaeda are aware of the importance of propaganda video, why wouldn't the US Government, which has in fact been using film propaganda for decades ? Except that, when they're filming something they don't want the credit for, they obviously want to get as far from claiming responsibility as they can - like using a pair of French immigrants, for example - which answers your other point. Or an avant-garde German artist - or a Czech tourist. All three shot the first plane - but only Naudet filmed the impact. Read the article.

You don’t have to teach me about propaganda, but none of the above has anything to do with the Naudet brothers having foreknowledge of the events of 9/11, anymore than Zapruder would have known that he was going to film President Kennedy’s assassination. The fact that both incidents occurred, and that they were both recorded for posterity, does not mean that either of the parties knew what was going to happen. They just happened to be there, in their respective locations, at the critical time, on the critical day.

7. I know nothing about "thought criminal" - I use my real name, and always have done on the Internet - and nothing about any admission by the Naudets. I can't answer that question.

The main reason why I am taking the time to answer your post is that it is written over your real name. I’m getting a bit fed up with stupid names and funny faces. I don’t think that they encourage others to take this forum seriously.

8. My list of conveniences - to be taken CUMULATIVELY, not individually - all refer to the circumstances applying to the film shot that morning, at that junction, allegedly by Jules Naudet. Your attempt to bring his parents, or Ray Ubinger's, into it is frankly ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous? You have postulated, a few paragraphs down, that EVERYTHING fitted Naudet's needs. My examples about the Naudet brothers’ parents, and Ray Ubinger’s, was to illustrate that everything must have exactly fitted the needs to bring them into the world. A missed bus, another drink with the boys at the pub, either party meeting another party at a critical moment and a particular sperm, out of several million, may not have met a particular ovum at the critical moment. You must have seen ‘Back to the Future’; fantasy, of course, but it illustrates that only a tiny incident would be required to change the course of what is to come.

Do you know what the odds are of both Naudet only being able to properly see the top third of the north face of the North Tower, and the plane hitting the top third of the north face of the North Tower ? Presuming we exclude the bottom third of that face, because of the No. 7 building in front of it - and presuming Naudet could have seen all the rest of the tower, divided into three parts on each side - and the plane could have hit any part - which it could : that works out at 11 times 11. The odds are 1 in 121. That's a mathematical FACT. If you want to challenge it, I'll give you the full breakdown of the permutations, and why the calculation is totally valid.

Please don’t give me any more mathematical facts, even if you are correct, they are not relevant. Were the chances 10 million to one, it doesn’t prove anything. In the case of our births, the odds against us being born are far greater than any that you mention, but here we are, arguing over what the chances are that a documentary crew could capture an unusual event, on videotape. The fact is that they did, whatever the odds, but that still does not prove that they had foreknowledge.

That's just ONE of my 69 conveniences. He was facing the plane as it passed, not standing with his back to it : two options - double 1-in-121. He was on the east side of the street, not the west, where the towers were hidden from view : two options - double the previous. There was no moving traffic, when there could have been : two options - double it again. There were no firemen between him and the tower when the plane hit it, when he could have had a view like Picture 1a in my Appendix 4 : two options - double it again. These things are exactly the same as picking the right cards out of a pack - one piece of luck, multiplied by another one, multiplied by another one. The more pieces of luck you get, the more unlikely it is. If you get the right one of two options ten times in a row, you're doing well - the odds of that happening are 1 in a million. Tell me what's invalid about applying that principle to the Naudet film. Naudet himself - and other people discussing the shot - feel the need to admit it's an incredibly lucky piece of film. I just happen to think the word "incredibly" should be taken literally, and I've given a ton of reasons why in my article.

Why not an incredible piece of luck, or the connection of 69 conveniences? What you are trying to imply is that the luck was not credible, that there are other reasons for the whole set of circumstances to have led to the capture of the crash. But, without any other facts, you are no closer to proving your theories than I am to winning a lottery that I haven’t bought a ticket for.

Anybody trying to capture something that sudden, that fast, that unexpected, needs a LOT of luck to achieve it - unless you want to argue with that proposition : maybe you think there's nothing so remarkable about filming, at street level, a Boeing 767 flying at full speed over a city full of skyscrapers, coming within 250 yards of you at its closest ? I do hope you're not suggesting that, because that would make writing this a total waste of my precious time.

Of course there is something remarkable about filming an aeroplane hitting a skyscraper, under all of the circumstances you list, but if you just happened to be there, with your camera running, it doesn’t mean that the FBI or the CIA made the arrangements; the blocked-off street, or the fact that no one was standing in front of the camera as you panned around, for example. To prove that, you have to have evidence that someone else chose the location, the circumstances, etc., and you have not done that, and, as far as I can tell, you have not even made and attempt to do so. Why don’t you write to the Naudet brothers? They are the ones you are, tacitly, accusing of not warning others that something overwhelmingly disastrous was about to happen. You are putting them in the same category as Odigo, the message service who were warned about the attacks, but took little or no action. That’s a pretty heavy charge to bring against anyone.

You have to examine the circumstances of the Naudet shot, to see how he managed to do something nobody else did, and there are a lot of imponderables involved, because of those circumstances - above all, speed, suddenness and brevity. And if you examine them, you get luck after luck after luck after luck after luck, ad infinitum - it's totally ridiculous. It's not just being in the right place at the right time. He has to be in EXACTLY the right place : he has to be on the east side of Church Street - it's impossible from the other side. He has to have a view of the face of the building the plane hits - it could have hit east, or west, or south - why not ? He has to have a view of the part of that face the plane hit - 15 floors from the top. That's right in the MIDDLE of the ONLY part he can see properly. I fail to see how pointing these things out qualifies as reading too much into it : I'm just stating the bleeding obvious. He can't be in a car or a vehicle ; the subjects he's filming when the plane turns up can't be walking about (nor can he), or talking to him, or making a loud noise, or driving, or standing between him and the tower - and they're doing none of these things. If they had been, we might not have the film. ONE thing - ONE wrong circumstance, out of the dozens of factors involved in capturing a shot like that - that's all it would have taken to totally screw it up. NOTHING went wrong. EVERYTHING fitted Naudet's needs.

So what? One thing going wrong in the process of you coming into this world, and I wouldn’t have to comment on the above paragraph. But, as with what led up to your existence, nothing went wrong, and here we are. This does not mean that a US government agency was overseeing the Naudet brothers, that day, anymore than some shady agency was responsible for my birth, or for yours.

That's not how things happen in real life, and I am not apologising for saying it. You could be a photographer for 100 years, and never produce a shot remotely like it. If you ever film something that changes history, that lasts ten seconds maximum, by a complete fluke, when it has nothing whatever to do with what you were filming before it happened, let me know about it - and I'll scrap my Naudet article the same day.

The above is garbage, pure and simple. Sorry. All sorts of unlikely things happen in real life. What you’ve written has no relevance to anything, and it would prove nothing if I went out and accidentally caught Air Force One on video, as an Exocet missile crashed into it.

Or if you can even come up with the name of another photographer who's ever done that. Quote me another example of a piece of fluke filming - or you could always concede that I'm in the right about this. Or here's another challenge : go to New York, find a building over 500 feet tall and photograph it from the street next door, three quarters of a mile away, with the top third of it right in the centre of the sides of the street you're in. That's what's in the Naudet first plane shot. Do that, and I'll be suitably impressed. If this guy wasn't unbelievably lucky to manage what he did, explain to me why we don't have 20 films of that plane flying into that building. My explanation is that other photographers didn't have his inside information. I'm not aware of a single other person in New York who even ATTEMPTED to film it, but failed. Pavel Hlava was on the wrong side for the impact, and Wolfgang Staehle wasn't shooting moving footage. Those two examples just prove the case about Naudet : he WAS on the right side, and he WAS shooting video - and 67 other pieces of "luck."

I doubt that you would accept an example of a piece of fluke filming, if I gave you one. But, skipping to the end of the above paragraph, tell me about luck. What is it? Can it be added up? Can two bits of luck add up to a bigger bit of luck, or are they consecutive bits of luck that lead to a third bit of luck that does not necessarily depend on the first two bits of luck? How many bits of luck are necessary for their cumulative effect to make something happening by pure chance fall outside of the realms of possibility, or even probability? Can your statistical methods calculate that?

If Naudet had been further north in Manhattan, and snatched a shot of the plane roaring past near the Empire State Building for a few seconds, I wouldn't be writing this - I'd accept it as authentic. The plane took quite a while flying down over Manhattan, and it could have been filmed at any point along that route : how credible is it that the only person who captured ANY of its flight, from Boston onwards, got the LAST TWO SECONDS - and ONLY that ? The most important part of its flight - the whole point of the flight, to the alleged hijackers. If the plane hadn't hit the building, who'd be interested in a film of it ? It's the ONLY part of the flight we DO have film of. Not only that, Naudet COULD only have filmed the very end of the flight, with the AT&T Building blocking several seconds before it - and he didn't attempt, for perfectly obvious reasons, to film it as it flew towards him. Don't they have photographers north of Canal Street ? They don't seem to have them in the Lower East Side, either - or in New Jersey across the river - because nobody filmed it from any of these places. Nobody filmed it from Central Park, or Harlem, or where James Hanlon comes from, the Bronx ; nobody filmed it as it flew over Indian Point Nuclear Power Station (which some say would have made a more credible target, if maximum death was the intention). But this guy just happens to be in the perfect place to grab the LAST TWO SECONDS - and he gets it with the towers right in the centre of the picture, and the impact right in the centre of the only part of the tower he has a clear view of - and some folk are such hopeless cases they think they can seriously tell me there's nothing suspect about any of it. It's a pain having to deal with mindlessness on that scale. I know brick walls aren't capable of rational debate, but people are meant to be.

Once again, there is nothing in the above paragraph that could lead anyone to believe that the Naudet brothers had foreknowledge of the event. If you included the entire works of William Shakespeare in you arguments, they would have exactly the same relevance. None at all.

9. "Gone through the motions" : yet again, as stated in my article - you really should read it - I have been personally assured by someone* who worked on editing the Naudet film that there were no reconstructions in it - "or anything like that." It's all totally authentic - all shot exactly as it happened, in that sequence, first take, no repeats, no fiddling about, no fakery, no nonsense.

*Can you give me that person’s name? In any event, unlike the aborted NYFD documentary which may have ended up with a couple of take two’s or even take three’s, it doesn’t surprise me that there were no reconstructions in the 9/11 video, for obvious reasons. Once again, you have not advanced your argument one jot.

Maybe you can explain Shot 20a in Appendix 4, where alleged firemen are looking west down Duane St, apparently trying to see No. 7 coming down, or some sign of it. It's like one of those old "What's wrong with this picture ?" things from the 1950s. In this case, the answer is that these guys are trying to perform the impossible. Check the map of Manhattan (Section 4), make sure your brain's in gear, and try to figure out how it might be possible to see WTC No. 7 by looking west down Duane St. Save your breath - it's not, and the picture's a nonsense - and so are what these guys are doing. Any suggestions as to why they might be doing it ? Why are they insulting the intelligence of anyone in the audience who knows that's Duane St, and where No. 7 was (and its replacement still is), and that you couldn't ever see ANY of the Trade Center buildings by looking where those firemen are ? Why is this insulting rubbish in a film you say was made by innocents ? It's FRAUDULENT - it's FAKE - and it's not remotely the only example of that in the film. READ MY ARTICLE. Yes, I do know what was going on in this film : I know what I've been told by somebody who worked on it, and what I've read in reviews, and from the fact that it won totally undeserved Emmy and Peabody awards. That it's a genuine, authentic documentary, with no fakery in it. I've just given you an example of a particularly blatant piece of fakery - far more blatant than the Flight 11 shot. What have you got to say for yourself ?

Why would I want to explain any shot in the video? Had you been able to come up with any tangible piece of evidence which even hinted that the Naudet brothers might have been in the loop, I may have looked closely at the video, but you haven’t. I really feel that it is you who should get your brain in gear. And you are accusing me of saying something I have never said. I have never said ‘the film was made by innocents’. For a start, I do not call video ‘film’. It is not a film, it is a video production, and I have merely said that you have produced no evidence to prove that they had foreknowledge.

10. People have been executed in this country - and still are in the USA - on circumstantial evidence alone, and there's plenty of that in the Naudet film and in my article. I don't know what you'd accept as "proof" - a signed confession, maybe ? - but I have not the slightest intention of giving up writing about the Naudets until you or anyone else comes up with one cogent reason why I should, something in which you have so far miserably failed.

You haven’t even got any circumstantial evidence to ‘convict’ anyone with. Do what you like, Les, but until you’ve got some proof that the Naudets were in the loop; that they knew what was going to happen, all of your writing will be in vain, because it is nothing but conjecture with no factual backing whatsoever.

Go away yourself, read the article, watch the film, do your homework, and come back when you've found some arguments worth discussing at anything like this length.

No, I have better things to do than do any homework on your bizarre theories. But I’ll leave you with the thought that I tried to put across in one of my earlier posts:

If the Naudets were in the loop then, in my opinion, they got it wrong, because they captured something which their ‘clients’ would certainly not have wanted them to capture.

Please try to follow the logic.

This forum and many others like it are dedicated to finding out the truth about 9/11. Among other things, we want to debunk the 9/11 Commission’s finding that the Twin Towers were brought down as the sole result of hijacked passenger aircraft hitting them. Are you with me so far?

But the critical Naudet brother’s shot shows that the plane which hit the North Tower emitted a flash a fraction of a second before impact. That being the case, why would the CIA or the FBI or any other shady agency go out of their way to ensure that the event was seen by millions of people?

Wouldn’t they prefer to rely purely on eyewitness accounts?

There were dozens of surveillance cameras surrounding and attached to the Pentagon, yet all of the tapes from these were confiscated and have never been seen by anyone other than, presumably, those who stole them. Which left the eyewitness accounts as the only ‘visual evidence’ that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon. Eyewitness accounts are fairly easy to refute, or bend about for your own ends. But recorded moving images are quite another matter.

I repeat:

Why would the planners, who almost certainly would have known that both of the New York aircraft were going to emit flashes—something that civilian passenger planes don’t do—go out of their way to ensure that the event was recorded, by the Naudet brothers, for all the world to see?

That scenario doesn’t make any sense.

One final word: I could have picked a camera location where the aircraft would have been seen hitting the tower, but without the flash being visible. Why didn’t they think of that? Why didn’t their ‘clients’ insist that they found such a camera position?

Could it be that there weren’t any ‘clients’, and that the Naudet brothers were where they were, and did what they did by pure chance?

Take care,

Anthony

[les raphael]

From : lesraphael@hotmail.com
Sat 21 Apr 07
From : the author of the Naudet article
I could take the time to go over all your fatuous arguments, Mr Lawson, but instead I'll save my breath and limit myself to one quote from you :
"No, I have never seen a full copy of the Naudet brother's video."
If you want a reason why I'm terminating the conversation, that's it there - and I don't mean the misplaced apostrophe. Nothing else you say is of the remotest relevance if you haven't seen the film. That's an absolute mimimum requirement, and if you can't meet it, it's just an insult, to me and anybody else reading this. What makes you think you have the right to discuss an article about a film you admit you haven't seen ? Want to talk about Schopenhauer instead ? Or do you know nothing about him either ? Join the club - neither do I.
As for the genius who thought I was being serious quoting Hughie Green - to spell his name properly : it was a JOKE. "He's quoting Hughie Green - he's a nutter." Give me strength. Is this the calibre of the contributions to this thread ? Folk who disqualify themselves by admitting they haven't seen the film I'm writing about, and ones who do it by failing to recognise sarcasm when it slaps them across the back of the head ?
Where's the debate ? Is there somebody out there with a brain, who's actually seen the Naudet film - even better, has a copy of it - who wants to try persuading me I'm misguided ? Do I have any takers ? And if there are any more Lawsons out there tempted to give it a go, hear this now : I'm not debating anything with folk who think the world is about cast-iron certainties, and expect me to provide those to prove my case about the Naudets. I am not accepting a higher burden of proof than we expect of our legal system. This is a quote from the current edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica :
"Since the means of acquiring evidence are clearly variable and delimited, they can result only in a degree of probability and not in an absolute truth in the philosophical sense. In common-law countries, civil cases require only preponderant probability and criminal cases, probability beyond reasonable doubt."
The UK and USA are countries that have a common-law system. It's about PROBABILITIES - not certainties. All I have to prove is "probability beyond reasonable doubt." And that, like most of the other points I would have raised if Lawson hadn't ruled himself out, is already stated in my article.
Les Raphael

[John White]

[Anthony Lawson]

The Burning Question

You seem to have exhausted your powers of observation spotting that misplaced comma. Perhaps that is why you have failed to answer my final question, when I have taken the trouble to analyse and comment on your bizarre theory. Here is the question, once again:

Why would the planners, who almost certainly would have known that both of the New York aircraft were going to emit flashes—something that civilian passenger planes don’t do—go out of their way to ensure that the event was recorded, by the Naudet brothers, for all the world to see?

[KP50]

[Anthony Lawson]

The Flash Was the Problem—Not the Plane

My question had to do with the problem of seeing the flash, not the problem of not seeing the aeroplane. Les Raphael has assumed (and KP50 seems to agree) that some visual record had to be made of the first impact. I vehemently disagree.

In the absence of recorded images, there would have been eyewitness accounts from people who, like Jules Naudet, would have heard the aircraft and reacted as he did, not with a camera, but with their eyes. In which case any ensuing inquiry would only have eyewitness accounts to worry about, which, unlike recorded images, are relatively easy to refute.

You rightly point out, KP50, that the flashes haven’t shown up in the mainstream media, but they might have been reported, and no one could have predicted exactly how the mainstream media was going to react.

To illustrate my point, here is an imagined exchange, during the planning stages of 9/11:
___________________________________


SPOOK: But what if people don’t believe that the towers were hit by aircraft? What if no one sees the planes?

HEAD SPOOK: You think that out of the entire day-time population of New York, no one is going to see two huge aircraft flying at about eight-hundred feet over Manhattan? You’re kidding, right?

SPOOK: Yeah, I take your point. But maybe we should get those French documentary guys to video the first one. You know, just in...

HEAD SPOOK: (almost shouting) Are you out of your mind? Those aircraft are going to shoot rockets or whatever into those buildings; there’s going to be a flash of light, just before they hit. Do you want that captured on videotape—for all the world to see—in slow motion?

SPOOK: No, I guess not, Sir.

HEAD SPOOK: Well, for once, you’ve guessed right! (fade out)
___________________________________


KP50, You’ve also brought up the interesting point about what would have happened if the second plane didn’t make it. This must have been a consideration, while planning an operation of such magnitude, and it puts yet another nail in Les Raphael’s theory.

If the Naudet brothers had been in the loop, then the planners should have asked them to place their camera in such a position that it could record the impact on either the North Tower, or the South Tower, because no one could have been absolutely certain which aircraft was going to reach its target first, or whether or not each plane would, in fact, complete its mission.

I rest my case.

[les raphael]

I have already told Anthony Lawson his correspondence is closed, as far as I am concerned, and explained why, perfectly clearly. To the moderator, abuse is not an argument : my case is not based on "paranoid imaginings" you happen not to like the implications of, but on observation of what the film shows, and deduction : that qualifies as evidence in any legal system, but we'll stick to the British-US one. The
circumstances of Naudet's shot of the first plane are so convenient in so many ways, when they could very easily have been extremely inconvenient, and prevented the shot altogether, in equally many ways, that I am not prepared to accept chance as more a probable explanation
than arrangement. That is a perfectly logical, rational proposition. If you are going to approach this subject from the standpoint of what you find it
comfortable to believe, as you apparently do, there is not a lot of point in debating the issue with someone who believes in looking at what's there and drawing conclusions from it.
Les Raphael 24 April 2007

[KP50]

[MadgeB]

It’s an interesting question to as why they didn’t cut out the ‘flash’ frame along with the other incriminating footage in the Naudet film. Maybe it’s the same reason they put so many impossible things in the CNN footage - perhaps they were just taking the piss. After all, it’s taken six years for some enterprising individual to check Battery Park and discover that the buildings could never be aligned like that in the real world.
http://www.911researchers.com/node/432#new

Anthony Lawson's other point assumes 2 planes with ‘rogue’ pilots. But if no hijacked planes were involved it all becomes much simpler for the perps. They could set up the Naudet shot as they knew roughly when the action was going to take place (give or take the few seconds delay mentioned by Les Raphael at the odor-of-gas scene). And for the second tower they only needed an explosion and some TV-fakery to introduce the second plane.

[KP50]

[Ray Ubinger]

[John White]

[Ray Ubinger]

[John White]

Nice try Ray: but it won't help you. This Naudet complicity scenario is going no where. Do I rule out the possibility? Of course not! Is it actually provable? Of course not!

So thanks for the invitation to join "paraniod fear of the week"

But no thanks. What would be the point?

[les raphael]

So, let's see if I've got this right, Mr White. You think I'm a paranoid idiot talking rubbish, that anyone with any sense can see is rubbish, so you decide to start a conversation with the idiot. You think nobody else should take me seriously, but somehow YOU do. I'm confused - or maybe it's you that's confused.
Anyway, presuming you have some reason for talking to somebody you think speaks fluent Gibberish, that somebody wants to ask you to check out Picture 20b in Appendix 4 of my Naudet article, and explain to me, if you would, why Tardio is telling us the Twin Towers of the WTC used to be at the end of Church Street, where he's gesturing. Can you produce
a map of New York that shows 1 and 2 WTC anywhere but to the west of West Broadway, which is well over 100 yards to the west of where Tardio is ? Would you concede that what this guy is doing is absurd ? He worked seven blocks away from the towers for years, and got called out to them on an almost daily basis, so we can assume he knew where they were,
and that it wasn't at the end of Church Street. Why is he doing this ? Don't you care ?
I do - I don't just sit there lapping up what gets put in front of me - I think about what I'm looking at, and if it doesn't conform to reality, I ask why - and I'm asking YOU why. Why aren't you accusing Tardio of talking rubbish, saying "It's hard to believe they're not there," when they never WERE, and he knows it ? Why am I the one who gets accused of
rubbish for asking why he's doing it ?
Or maybe you'd like to explain Picture 20a, just as absurd, if not more so. Why are these alleged firemen looking west down Duane Street as if they're trying to see No. 7 Trade Center collapsing ? There's a view of No. 7 from Duane Street in the film, funnily enough, but to get it, Hanlon and Benetatos have to stand in an aerial platform 40 feet above the street and the firehouse roof, and look south. Never in a million years could you see it looking west, at street level. This is lunacy - why are they doing it ? Are they looking at something else, maybe ? Any suggestions ? A giant TV screen down the end of the block ? If you can't answer the question, and don't care, I could paraphrase Spencer Tracy in "Inherit the Wind" and say that it frightens me to think that everybody might share your
burning sense of curiosity.
Neither of these pictures is evidence of the Naudets' - or the firemen's - complicity in 9/11, but they do establish pretty convincingly, to me, that there are some very curious things going on in this film, and that they involve absurdity and fakery. And if you have to exercise your brain to realise that these two shots are bizarre, it proves the point that what you see on the screen is not the end of the story - and it's not the end of the
story with the shot of Flight 11 flying into the North Tower, either. That one is a bit more subtle than these blatant examples, but there are similarities, when you examine the scene.
I don't know what you would accept as "evidence" condemning the Naudets : do you think they would leave it lying around, so that somebody like me could come along and stick them on Death Row ? Is that a serious proposition ? If there's evidence there, it's going to have to be worked for - hunted out - inferred - deduced. That's what happens with a lot of crimes - no forensic, no fingerprints, no witnesses prepared to talk, etc - you can still get enough material, indirectly, to persuade a jury. That's NOT what you call "supposition" : there's a difference between guesswork from a blank page and deduction from given data, and there's no guesswork involved in my list of 69 conveniences in the first plane shot. They're all solid FACT - observations about what's in the film, and, where relevant, which it sometimes is, what isn't in it. Like why, when the Naudets were at Duane St when this gas emergency call came in on the morning of 9/11, we have no film of it - or of Pfeifer and the firemen responding, or their journey up to Church Street and Lispenard, since those scenes in the film appear to be reconstructions - who filmed Pfeifer's SUV from a vehicle in front of it ? - etc etc.
You may choose to believe it's pure coincidence that Naudet just happened to only be able to see the top third of the north face of the North Tower - just over 8% of its external surface - and that that just happened to be the 8% the plane hit. And another coincidence that he was on the right side of the street to have even that view, when a gas leak at the NW corner, or the SW - would have made his shot virtually impossible - or even the SE, maybe, with a set of traffic lights in front of him, and/or a 7-foot-tall mail van. And another coincidence he was facing the plane when it passed, not standing with his back to it. And another coincidence he was with firemen, and had access to their transport to carry on filming down at the Trade Center. And another one that there was no moving traffic at the junction - and another one that the folk he was filming when the plane turned up were all standing around in silence,
footering about apparently doing nothing - and another one that none of them were standing between him and the tower, blocking his view, as in Picture 1a - and another one that .... but how many coincidences, all of them convenient to filming the plane, does it take to convince you there's something suspect about all this ? Do you honestly expect me to believe
Naudet would have signposted the fact that the scene was staged, so that nobody was in any doubt about it ? Maybe if one of the firemen had been standing there with a big ten-foot-wide placard saying "THIS IS STAGED," you'd accept it - although I wouldn't bet on it. And maybe my opponents might start talking some sense, although I'd bet even less on that. You
just can't get through to some folk : logic makes no impression on them, and they have no logical counter-arguments to offer - just mindless abuse and pigheaded preconceptions that nothing can shift. If they're not going to make the effort, why should I ?
Les Raphael Thurs 26 Apr 07

[les raphael]

So, let's see if I've got this right, Mr White. You think I'm a paranoid idiot talking rubbish, that anyone with any sense can see is rubbish, so you decide to start a conversation with the idiot. You think nobody else should take me seriously, but somehow YOU do. I'm confused - or maybe it's you that's confused.
Anyway, presuming you have some reason for talking to somebody you think speaks fluent Gibberish, that somebody wants to ask you to check out Picture 20b in Appendix 4 of my Naudet article, and explain to me, if you would, why Tardio is telling us the Twin Towers of the WTC used to be at the end of Church Street, where he's gesturing. Can you produce
a map of New York that shows 1 and 2 WTC anywhere but to the west of West Broadway, which is well over 100 yards to the west of where Tardio is ? Would you concede that what this guy is doing is absurd ? He worked seven blocks away from the towers for years, and got called out to them on an almost daily basis, so we can assume he knew where they were,
and that it wasn't at the end of Church Street. Why is he doing this ? Don't you care ?
I do - I don't just sit there lapping up what gets put in front of me - I think about what I'm looking at, and if it doesn't conform to reality, I ask why - and I'm asking YOU why. Why aren't you accusing Tardio of talking rubbish, saying "It's hard to believe they're not there," when they never WERE, and he knows it ? Why am I the one who gets accused of
rubbish for asking why he's doing it ?
Or maybe you'd like to explain Picture 20a, just as absurd, if not more so. Why are these alleged firemen looking west down Duane Street as if they're trying to see No. 7 Trade Center collapsing ? There's a view of No. 7 from Duane Street in the film, funnily enough, but to get it, Hanlon and Benetatos have to stand in an aerial platform 40 feet above the street and the firehouse roof, and look south. Never in a million years could you see it looking west, at street level. This is lunacy - why are they doing it ? Are they looking at something else, maybe ? Any suggestions ? A giant TV screen down the end of the block ? If you can't answer the question, and don't care, I could paraphrase Spencer Tracy in "Inherit the Wind" and say that it frightens me to think that everybody might share your
burning sense of curiosity.
Neither of these pictures is evidence of the Naudets' - or the firemen's - complicity in 9/11, but they do establish pretty convincingly, to me, that there are some very curious things going on in this film, and that they involve absurdity and fakery. And if you have to exercise your brain to realise that these two shots are bizarre, it proves the point that what you see on the screen is not the end of the story - and it's not the end of the
story with the shot of Flight 11 flying into the North Tower, either. That one is a bit more subtle than these blatant examples, but there are similarities, when you examine the scene.
I don't know what you would accept as "evidence" condemning the Naudets : do you think they would leave it lying around, so that somebody like me could come along and stick them on Death Row ? Is that a serious proposition ? If there's evidence there, it's going to have to be worked for - hunted out - inferred - deduced. That's what happens with a lot of crimes - no forensic, no fingerprints, no witnesses prepared to talk, etc - you can still get enough material, indirectly, to persuade a jury. That's NOT what you call "supposition" : there's a difference between guesswork from a blank page and deduction from given data, and there's no guesswork involved in my list of 69 conveniences in the first plane shot. They're all solid FACT - observations about what's in the film, and, where relevant, which it sometimes is, what isn't in it. Like why, when the Naudets were at Duane St when this gas emergency call came in on the morning of 9/11, we have no film of it - or of Pfeifer and the firemen responding, or their journey up to Church Street and Lispenard, since those scenes in the film appear to be reconstructions - who filmed Pfeifer's SUV from a vehicle in front of it ? - etc etc.
You may choose to believe it's pure coincidence that Naudet just happened to only be able to see the top third of the north face of the North Tower - just over 8% of its external surface - and that that just happened to be the 8% the plane hit. And another coincidence that he was on the right side of the street to have even that view, when a gas leak at the NW corner, or the SW - would have made his shot virtually impossible - or even the SE, maybe, with a set of traffic lights in front of him, and/or a 7-foot-tall mail van. And another coincidence he was facing the plane when it passed, not standing with his back to it. And another coincidence he was with firemen, and had access to their transport to carry on filming down at the Trade Center. And another one that there was no moving traffic at the junction - and another one that the folk he was filming when the plane turned up were all standing around in silence,
footering about apparently doing nothing - and another one that none of them were standing between him and the tower, blocking his view, as in Picture 1a - and another one that .... but how many coincidences, all of them convenient to filming the plane, does it take to convince you there's something suspect about all this ? Do you honestly expect me to believe
Naudet would have signposted the fact that the scene was staged, so that nobody was in any doubt about it ? Maybe if one of the firemen had been standing there with a big ten-foot-wide placard saying "THIS IS STAGED," you'd accept it - although I wouldn't bet on it. And maybe my opponents might start talking some sense, although I'd bet even less on that. You
just can't get through to some folk : logic makes no impression on them, and they have no logical counter-arguments to offer - just mindless abuse and pigheaded preconceptions that nothing can shift. If they're not going to make the effort, why should I ?
Les Raphael Thurs 26 Apr 07

[John White]

Loads of words again: yes it is a waste of your time

You have suspicion and seem confused into thinking that others are at fault for not accepting suspicion as fact.

You talk of logic: but have no proof to base logic upon:

and simply ignore the meanings of words posted to you in reply, like:

[MadgeB]

KP50 said: "So you think a plane did hit Tower 1 but not Tower 2? So having flown a plane into a building when almost no cameras were pointing at it, they then faked the second plane impact? Please clarify."

Well something (or things) hit Tower 1 - or maybe fired missiles into it and then flew over the top - but there’s no evidence to show this happened for Tower 2. Comparing the Tower 1 (Naudet) hit to the Tower 2 ones, the webfairy says, “Every field of every frame is different, absolutely opposite the true fakes where the frames are duplicated to make animation easier.”

Short discussion here (including links showing there was no flight 11 that day) http://www.911researchers.com/node/390?page=1

By presenting the the Naudet clip - which shows only fuzzy images not identifiable as any particular plane - and telling us authoritatively, on the news, that it was a Boeing 767, the perps achieved the result that people (even 9/11 ‘truthers’ on this forum) swear they can actually see a Boeing 767 in the image. What more could the perps want from the Naudet setup?

Having hammered home the idea that a hijacked plane hit Tower 1, they were then more able to push the story that a hijacked plane had hit Tower 2, overruling anyone who saw the explosion but saw no plane.

They had no need of real hijacked planes, which would only have complicated issues. Gerard Holmgren explains “Why they didn’t use planes” succinctly here: http://911closeup.com/

[Ray Ubinger]

[John White]