JULES NAUDET'S FIRST PLANE SHOT WAS STAGED
A Clue to the Truth about 9/11 ?



6. Photographic demonstration

Manhattan, looking northwards from the observation deck of Two World Trade Center, the South Tower, showing the view to the north-east, the best area for capturing the last seconds of Flight 11, and (lettered as in Map 1, from left to right, C, A, D and F) the four biggest buildings and biggest potential problems. Every single building in the photograph is a potential obstacle to seeing the World Trade Center, if you happen to be behind it or inside it. The publicity shots often showing water, and often shot from New Jersey, Queens or Brooklyn or ones like this are not how the towers looked to people at ground level in Manhattan. To anyone unfamiliar with that fact, there seem to be plenty of possibilities in a panorama like this surely the plane could be filmed from just about anywhere in the picture ? Well, no, it certainly could not.

The photographer, for a start, has to be out in the street: no-one inside a building would be able to both see the plane and discern its direction, in time to capture it; someone on a rooftop might, but would that be a credible story ? Filming from above the streets in a helicopter, perhaps might be a possibility, but that might also look just as suspect as being on a roof. The black arrow shows the approximate path of the plane as it flies over the Western Union Building (C) towards the North Tower (G); anywhere west of this can be ruled out as involving filming towards the sun, even if only momentarily or in panning past it. Areas in the distance say, beyond A (the AT&T Building), which is three quarters of a mile away can also be excluded because the plane would be too small: to be identifiable as one, it would have to be filmed through a zoom lens, which would be too risky. West of the arrow is out; beyond A is out; inside a building is out; flying is out; what does that leave us ?

In the previous section, six streets appeared from maps to be candidates; three of those Cortland Avenue, Lafayette Street and Centre Street are very difficult to make out in this photograph. They seem to be mostly hidden behind buildings on their west sides and in other streets. They might still be eligible, but the visibility of the Trade Center must be severely limited and, as pointed out in Chapter 5, although filming the towers after the impact was certainly feasible, and we have the film to prove it, filming the impact itself was a different proposition and no-one did, from any of these three streets. Even Broadway 3 in the photograph is barely visible in this shot : you can only really infer its presence from the buildings along its sides. The only streets that are clearly visible in the right area east of the plane, and reasonably near the tower (and these are the only streets there are no lanes between them longer than one block) are all north-south : we have three options, and the third can pretty much be ruled out, on this evidence.

The visibility aspect also applies in reverse: if you can't see the street from the Trade Center, you can't see the Trade Center from the street which eliminates not just all east-west streets but a lot of north-south ones, unless the photographer is on the right side, or in the middle of the street, which tends to be dangerous to most folk. And this view, remember, is from more than 1,300 feet up (Floor 107) higher than Flight 11's actual impact and taken from the South Tower, so even some of the areas visible in the photograph might have only a limited view of the North Tower. Building B in Map 1, the Tribeca Grand Hotel, is missing from this photograph because it was only built in the late 1990s; likewise, E, the Tribeca Tower, was only built in 1991; but the only effect of adding these two to the picture would be to even further restrict the filming options.

From where else in this photograph could the plane have been filmed, to make it look plausibly accidental ? There are effectively only two streets available West Broadway (1) and Church (2). But West Broadway is too obvious, for reasons given in the previous section. Who would believe a shot from directly ahead of the tower, showing only one of its faces ? Nobody would accept that as an accident. Moving even one street away because these streets are so wide apart would show two faces, and would make it look as if the photographer was nowhere near the tower, away on the other side of the city somewhere especially when you could only see the top third of the building. One street to the east of West Broadway is Church Street. And if Church Street is the only remaining candidate, can we narrow the choice down to a specific place along its length ?

Yes, we can time and distance would suggest somewhere near the Canal Street end, on the east side of the street because as the photograph proves, you can't see the Twin Towers from the west side (or vice versa). Narrowing down even further, what we need is a large building not necessarily enormous, but big enough to act as a filming prop, to hide the plane until its last two seconds, and catch it from behind, avoiding having to track its flight. Fortunately New York is littered with large buildings, and the largest one in this area is the one marked A in the picture, with the point where Naudet and his firemen friends "just happened" to be hanging around marked as a red spot to the right of it. This spot is overwhelmingly, in several different ways, the best place he could have filmed the plane and it's absolutely precisely where he did film it. What produces a result like that ? Can anyone seriously believe it was luck ? Or do we not now have a far better case that it was planning ?

The point about east-west streets can also be demonstrated by a fairly elementary mathematical exercise, as in the above diagram in which B is the foot of Tower One, A is the approximate point of impact of Flight 11, about 1,200 feet up, and C is Naudet's position at the junction of Church and Lispenard Streets, about 3,900 feet away. This, of course, assumes that angle ABC is a right angle, but that would be a fair assumption, given that Manhattan is not best known for its mountains (would Peter Minuit have been so interested in "buying" it from the locals in 1626 ?). The actual figures and the scale of the diagram are irrelevant : what matters are the proportions and angles. If AB is 4 and BC is 13, or in those proportions, then the angle ACB is just over 17 degrees : this is the angle of elevation of A as seen from C. What that means is that if Naudet has a 50-foot-tall obstacle between him and the point of impact, he has to be a minimum of 162.5 feet (50 x 39/12) behind it to have any chance of seeing the impact over the top of the obstacle and with no further obstacles in those 162.5 feet.

Conversely, if he is on the north side of a street 60 feet wide, as far away from the buildings on the south side as possible, those buildings would have to be a maximum of 18.5 feet tall (60 x 12/39) distinctly on the low side for Manhattan for the impact to be just about visible. In other words, if BC is 60 feet, AB is 18.5 feet, and if AB is 50 feet, BC is 162.5 feet : the angles and proportions stay the same. If Naudet had been close enough to the tower to have the angle ACB at 45 degrees, with buildings only 60 feet tall opposite the north side of a 60-foot-wide street, he might just about have been able to capture the impact above those buildings if not for the fact that he would have been only 1,200 feet from the tower (thus the 45-degree angle), which would leave him less than two seconds between the plane passing him and hitting the tower. Possible, but incredibly unlikely. There are umpteen east-west streets that could have been candidates as a filming location there are 14 between Tower One and where Naudet actually was but none of them are usable, because of the above arithmetic : the closer you are to the tower, the less time you have ; the further away, the lower the buildings on the south side have to be, and/or the wider the street. The only streets usable for the purpose were north-south, and there were far fewer than 14 of those available.