A Clue to the Truth about 9/11 ?
American Airlines Flight 11, North Tower, World Trade Center

by Leslie Raphael
First draft September 2002
First edition December 2004
*This update July 2007*

*On 11 September 2001, someone flew a Boeing 767 jet — height 52 feet, wingspan 156 feet — into the upper floors of one of the most famous tourist attractions in New York and the world, the joint tallest building in the biggest city in the USA, the North Tower of the World Trade Center, in broad daylight, in front of a potential audience of millions. But only three people in the entire city captured any kind of photographic image of that plane, and only one of those captured film of the plane actually hitting the building. But that one person captured the plane hitting the top third of the north face of that building, when he could only properly see the top third of the north face of that building (i.e. if the plane had hit any of the other 92%, he could not have filmed the impact); that one person captured the event right in the centre of his picture (see heading above); and that one person just happened to be a guest of, would you believe, the Fire Department of New York — specifically, Chief Joseph Pfeifer of Battalion 1, which covered the whole Lower Manhattan area, including the Trade Center. In fact, the photographer, Jules Naudet, had just been filming the Chief in the street as the jet flew over, and was given permission by him to carry on filming him in the lobby of the North Tower, as he helped to run the city's biggest ever emergency response — an emergency that later claimed the lives of 343 FDNY personnel, including the Chief's brother. Let's repeat those facts : the only person in the whole of New York who filmed this passenger jet crashing into the joint tallest building in the city, in broad daylight, was with the second most senior fire officer (after his Battalion Commander) in Lower Manhattan when it happened, and for the rest of that morning — and he filmed it hitting the only 8% of the building's exterior facade he had a view of, with the Twin Towers split by the precise horizontal centre of his impact shot. No tourist captured the impact — no TV photographer, no movie photographer, no security camera — nobody filmed it, except Naudet.

That fact was not known to me at the time, or for the next year : in all that time, I never once saw the Naudet shot being described as unique — and that is the key point about it. But for that fact, it could be perfectly innocent, and that is what I assumed it was for the first 12 months. It must have been known to the media within hours or days that the Naudet shot was the only one, but nobody ever said so — presumably because they knew it would attract suspicion. Even today, six years later, there must be people who do not know the film is unique, or do not realise the significance. The main two reasons I accepted the film as genuine were (a) because for months after 9/11 it seemed to be deliberate media policy to create confusion as to which plane or tower we were watching (a fairly typical example being a Guardian front cover showing the nonsensical spectacle of a plane apparently flying towards a tower that was already on fire), and (b) I assumed there must have been other films of the event, but the only one we ever saw, again and again — the Naudet shot — was quite simply the clearest and best. If I had known it was the only, I would have seen through it right from the start : so, presumably, would many others — far more than have done.

The Naudet film of Flight 11 — if that is the object in the picture — has rightfully become one of the best-known pieces of documentary footage ever taken, but not because of the incredulity and suspicion the above facts should have invited. That only a small minority, including this writer, have ever expressed doubt about the Naudet brothers' ludicrous story is something that to me defies logical comprehension. Anyone who thinks there is nothing suspect about even this skeletal outline, let alone the full detailed analysis offered in this essay, must have something wrong with their thought processes ; those who know perfectly well the Naudet film is a fraud, but have no intention of advertising the fact — and that includes folk like 911truth.org, who masquerade as sceptics while peddling distraction and disinformation (would we really expect those behind 9/11 not to be running a fake opposition, as well as contaminating the real one ?) — have something wrong with their morality.

To my knowledge — and I challenge the reader to offer one example — no-one in the entire history of photography, since its invention in 1826 by another Frenchman, Nicιphore Niιpce, has produced an image like the Naudet film of American Airlines Flight 11. No other world-shattering event, as sudden, as rapid and as totally unexpected to the people of New York as the arrival of that plane was — which is why, essentially, nobody else got it — has ever been recorded on film : least of all with only six seconds to spare, after a 90-degree camera pan and with the buildings that were both about to be hit over the next 20 minutes centred in the shot, and framed by the buildings on the sides of the street next door, like curtains framing the action on a theatrical stage. There had been nothing like it in the previous 175 years, and there has been nothing like it since. In the putative "Complete History of Documentary Photography," in the chapter entitled "Accidental Pictures of Moments that Changed the World," the only name mentioned would be Jules Naudet's : how many other photographers have a whole branch of the art all to themselves ? The unique 9/11 event was the subject of an equally unique photographic achievement.

This absurdity has been almost completely ignored by the world's media since the shot was first televised by Univision on the night of 11 September — so completely that even most of the (genuine) people who have been telling us all along that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government itself have failed to pick up on it. All the so-called investigative journalists in the business who, this much later, are still unaware of this story and its importance, should frankly be ashamed of themselves. That may not be the best way to win their support, but who needs it ? They have had the biggest story of their careers staring them in the face for at least five years, but have done nothing with it : what do they want — congratulation ? Naudet could be called a classic Elephant in the Room, except that those animals can be seen perfectly well by folk who prefer just not to talk about them : this giant pachyderm, trumpeting right in their faces and soiling their carpets, they can't even see.

I wrote this piece to make the Elephant visible — because there are only two explanations for Naudet's unique Flight 11 impact film, and I am not buying the one offered by him and the media : luck. That proposition is so fatuous, for the reasons given in this article, that I prefer to believe — and I invite you to do likewise — that the shot was arranged in advance, by some of the very few people who did know about Flight 11 before it appeared above New York, and that if Jules Naudet filmed its appearance, Jules Naudet was one of them, and is therefore an accessory to mass murder. Those who want names and evidence to bring a 9/11 case to court — the first involving direct participation in the conspiracy — can find them here : the names are Jules Naudet, Gιdιon Naudet and James Hanlon, and the evidence is in their film "9/11" and this analysis of it.

The self-incrimination, in fact, was deliberately left in the film, as an insult — and as an example of the dictum that the biggest, most blatant crimes need the biggest, most blatant lies; the outrageousness is a protection for the perpetrators — just like 9/11 itself — and Pearl Harbor — and like that other story from the 1940s that was thought too horrific to believe. Gas chambers ? Crematoria ? Industrialised murder ? It had to be propaganda — "they wouldn't do it." That is, verbatim, what Noam Chomsky says today, about 9/11. The knowledge that that would be Chomsky's reaction is itself an argument for doing it. If even the great oracle of the American left refuses to accept it, the rest can be written off as hysterical idiots. Three deaths would never have got the USA into Central Asia and Iraq — and it would be quite plausible that the deaths could have been engineered for that purpose; 30 deaths wouldn't have done it, and they could still have been manufactured by their own side ; 300 would be getting more promising ; when you reach 3,000, the outrage that figure creates matches the outrage that they could have been an inside job, and that is why it had to be 3,000. However hard it is for some folk to get their heads around, there are people in this world who look and sound like normal human beings but are capable of thinking like that, and they sometimes wear business suits and uniforms — like the pair at the bottom of this page. And sometimes they tell us they are French film makers, like the subject of this article.

Free advertisement for them : anyone who wants to know the truth about 9/11 should buy the Naudet DVD and watch the evidence in front of them ; the stills I include here are effective enough to justify my arguments, but no substitute for the original. This film is one of the most monstrous propaganda exercises ever produced : all you have to do to see that is exercise your brain while watching it. Open your mind and your eyes, and see the film for what it is : these people are lying, murdering psychopaths pretending to be heroes, and hiding behind real ones. It takes more than dressing up as a New York fireman to qualify as a hero — to those of us with brains ; I did not write this piece for people who cannot handle the idea of saints turning out to be frauds, because it means they must have been idiots to ever believe them, and it spoils the comforting, infantile fantasy world they live in. Welcome to the real one, those who can deal with cold, hard, miserable, depressing, God-awful truth.

About the author
Leslie Raphael was born in 1951 in Scotland and still lives there. His main interests include languages, music of all varieties (except bad) and, of course, politics. Anyone who feels the need to know more can use the e-mail address.

Special thanks to Deanna Spingola for hosting this essay, and for all her support ; to Ray Ubinger, Scott Loughrey, Peter Meyer and others for their contribution to getting the truth about the Naudets on record (especially the ones who were saying it before me) ; and to Frank Tolopko, Jerry Mazza, Jim Gregory, Debbie Lewis, Keith Mothersson and everyone else offering help and encouragement.*

*NB : Passages, pictures, etc preceded by a red asterisk and followed by a blue one (as here) are new to this edition — for the benefit of those who have already ploughed through the previous one.

1. Introduction                                            9. The 9/11 convictions
2. The Flight 11 shot in 39 cuts                    10. What next ?
3. Conveniences                                         Appendix 1: Pavel Hlava and Wolfgang Staehle
4. Maps                                                     Appendix 2: The 9/11 film industry
5. Objections and answers                           Appendix 3: The Naudets in 2006
6. Photographic demonstration                     Appendix 4: Evidence from the film
7. Elsewhere in the Naudet film                   Appendix 5: A letter from Des Browne
8. The Northwoods context                         Appendix 6: The Film Contract [Late Addition Aug 2007]*


"I don't know. They say there is always a witness for history. I guess ... we were ... that day, we were chosen to be the witness": Jules Naudet (03:51 into the DVD). Chosen by whom ? The Great Scriptwriter in the Sky ? Or was it ...

Comments: lesraphael@hotmail.com