A Clue to the Truth about 9/11?

4. Maps

Now please refer to Maps 1 and 2 and consider the proposition in reverse.

Assume as a given the information that a civilian airliner will be deliberately flown into the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8.46 am on the morning of 11 September, 2001, hitting the tower head on at 450 m.p.h. after flying in a straight line towards it, at a constant height of about 1,200 feet, impacting at around floor 95 (15 or so from the top of the tower) — to contain the death toll to roughly 2,000*; we need propaganda film of this event, showing the last seconds of the plane's flight (just in case there are no eyewitnesses, in which case the fire could have been caused by something inside the building) and allowing a close-up of the damage to the building after impact, which means filming from somewhere north of the tower.

* Can there be any other explanation for the impact height? If the hijackers, as we are assured, wanted to wreak maximum death, what conceivable reason could they have for hitting the tower at a point that would allow the vast majority to evacuate the building — which is exactly what happened? Everyone above the impact died and everyone below it didn't, for perfectly obvious, predictable reasons, well known to every fire service in the world — mainly, that fire always burns upwards: why would that fact not have occurred to people who wanted as many as possible to die? They were brilliant enough to get the planes from Boston to New York, outsmarting the entire US air defense system — but why bother giving any thought to where to hit the buildings, if and when they ever reached them? What difference would it make? A difference of about 15,000 — or, in percentage terms, an 85% survival rate; to the hijackers, 85% failure. Alternatively, and more credibly, to folk who only wanted about 2,000 — the Pentagon's death actuaries, with their 1941 model giving a rough idea of how many it takes to justify getting the USA into a major war — a 100% success.

Obviously, the film would have to be disguised as "accidental," so a cover story has to be contrived, and a suitable filming location chosen. This is no doubt exactly how the Naudet film was organised — by setting requirements, and trying to solve all the problems involved — in a brainstorming session like the one in the film "Wag the Dog", about a fabricated war, ironically — starring Robert De Niro, who, even more ironically, was somehow persuaded to introduce the original TV version of the Naudet film, lending it some much-needed credibility, when he and his management should have known better. Strangely, when the film was released on VHS and DVD, it included new footage and 52 extra minutes of interviews, but De Niro’s contribution had been completely removed: did he get wise?

Streets                     Buildings
1 West Broadway     A AT&T Building (430')
2 Church Street         B Tribeca Grand Hotel (85')
3 Broadway              C Western Union Building (370')
4 Cortland Avenue    D AT&T "Long Lines" Building (551')
5 Lafayette Street      E Tribeca Tower (545')
6 Centre Street          F Jacob K. Javits Federal Building (587')
                                 G One World Trade Center (1,368')

Approximate flight path of American Airlines Flight 11
Time scale of last ten seconds of flight (1/8 of a mile a second at 450 m.p.h.)
Jules Naudet's location between NE and SE corners of Church/Lispenard intersection
12Ί angle between Naudet's position and flight path as measured from One WTC

The vast majority of Manhattan's population at any given time is either inside a building — home, school, workplace, etc — or a vehicle — car, bus, subway, etc. Of the small minority who are outside on the street, on foot, most of those are moving towards a destination. It would be virtually impossible to capture the impact either from inside a building or vehicle, certainly a moving one, or while walking, so the photographer has to be outside, on the street, stationary.

The most convenient pretext for being in a certain place, at a certain time, is to use people who have to be at any place, at any time — one of the emergency services: firemen, for example. But firemen don't normally carry cameras with them. Solution: have someone else filming them, for a documentary. But the film couldn't be about a fire, if we need to capture the plane: it would be too distracting and too dangerous. The plane would only be audible and visible for about ten seconds from any one point in the city — from most places, with a sudden increase in volume and visibility and then fading away again just as suddenly — it would only be at maximum volume for one or two seconds. Ten, or even two, seconds of loud extraneous noise near the camera — a truck engine, a pneumatic drill — could completely drown out the plane's engines. What we really need is a silent emergency — a gas leak, for example.

Since we want to avoid filming the plane in motion, which might blur the impact shot, we need an excuse for only filming the last few seconds, preferably from behind the plane — but not straight behind it, because that would look too convenient; as would managing to grab a camera, or start filming, just before the impact — even if there was enough time to do it. The best method is simply to have the plane hidden from view temporarily — plausible enough, in a city as full of tall buildings as New York. Not that you need a tall building to hide a plane — or even the World Trade Center towers.

If they were the only buildings in New York, and the rest of it was flat, it would be easily possible to hide them from one person's view by having someone else standing in the way — an adult in front of a child, for example — or, as shown in the Naudet film (Picture 1a in Appendix 4), a fireman filmed from a child's height. Or the camera's view could be blocked by having the lens coated in dust — as in other scenes from the Naudet film, as it happens. Not to mention other filming hazards like lampposts, traffic lights, road signs, tree branches, birds, etc — all of them to be seen in the film. The number of streets it might be possible to use for filming is extremely limited, and for these purposes I would reduce it to the six north-south streets shown in Map 1 — in eastwards order, West Broadway, Church Street, Broadway, Cortland Avenue, Lafayette Street and Centre Street.

Map 3 (Scale 1:4125)
JN: Jules Naudet (position marked as red dot)
A-G: as Map 1; other buildings mentioned in text (with heights) —
H: SoHo Grand Hotel (176')
I: Post Office (24')
J: NYPD First Division Headquarters (45')
K: FDNY Ladder 8, 14 North Moore Street (35')
L: FDNY Engine 7/Ladder 1, 100 Duane Street (40')
M: Seven World Trade Center (570' — rebuilt 2005, 741')
N: Two World Trade Center (1,362')

In Map 3, all areas shaded blue show blind spots as in Map 1, areas from which it was impossible to see any of the World Trade Center towers — but these are only some of those areas. Virtually the entire length of the west side of Church Street — for example — would be shaded blue in a complete mapping. The significance of the red lines leading from the Trade Center towers (G and N) up to the top right is that if Naudet moves along Lispenard Street east or west over either of those lines, he completely loses sight of both towers. The dot showing his position, just off the pavement at the NE corner of the intersection, is in the exact centre of the WTC's "window of visibility" — just as the towers are right in the centre of his impact shot, with an equal width of sky on either side — the two facts being linked. He could have been standing anywhere at that crossroads: within those four corners, can it credibly be pure chance that he was standing at the exact midpoint of the WTC's visibility?

Map 4: A photographic version of Map 3, with only the larger buildings and Naudet's position identified.
Go to Part 5