A Clue to the Truth about 9/11 ?

Appendix 3 : The Naudets in 2006 ... and later

On 2 September 2006, “9/11: The Five Year Anniversary” was televised, supposedly updating the story since 2001, but in the event failing to live up to its advance publicity. It consisted – apart from 15 minutes of new material entitled “9/11: Five Years Later” – of the original TV version of “9/11,” restoring Robert De Niro’s contributions, but with no trace of the “new portions” he allegedly recorded in August 2006. The “update” included the “news” that, among other things, Dennis Tardio retired six months after 9/11 and John O’Neill a year after it (pre-publicity also told us — curiously — James Hanlon had retired, but not when : it was actually in 2007); that Tony Benetatos was transferred “a couple of months” later to the HAZMAT (Hazardous Materials) unit in Queens – rather fast for someone so recently only a probationary; and that he had witnessed, aged 13, his sister committing suicide “through fire.” In the original film, he claimed he had wanted to join the fire service “to be a hero” – no mention of any part his sister’s death might have played. Now we see him taking it easy at home, watering the garden.

What does Bill Walsh do these days ? He goes fishing – water again – must be a theme – with his granddaughter, for the peace and quiet. Ex-chief – and he seems to have some difficulty fully accepting the “ex” part (“Because, you know what ? They're my firefighters, it's my building, it's my city” (49:24)) — Larry Byrnes has now retired to Long Island, where we see him — yes, it’s a theme — going fishing. Of course, he was already retired, three years before 9/11 happened, but why spoil the story with cynicism ? If then-current Chief Ron Schmutzler didn’t object to the old guy thinking he still ran Battalion 1, if not the entire Department, or city, or state, why should we ? 

And what of the Naudets and Hanlon ? We get five “new” pieces of film:
1. A shot – recorded when ? – of Jules discussing, for 12 seconds, Joseph Pfeifer’s work;
2. A shot – recorded when ? – of Hanlon discussing, for 6 seconds, cancer cases allegedly caused by 9/11;
3. A shot – recorded when ? – of Gédéon discussing, for 8 seconds, the same thing, talking about “the most extraordinary of all circumstance” — something the Naudets have rather more experience of than the rest of us;
4. A 16-second shot of Hanlon on – where else ? – a fishing boat, with the brothers, his narration informing us what they have been up to since 2001 : “We went back to making documentaries.” Oh really ? So where are they ? Can we have a name for one of them ? And what happened to the non-documentary “Seamus” project ? And why does Gédéon appear to be wearing the same blue shirt, gray jacket and 5 o’clock shadow as in the Lake Success picture (left, below) from June 2003 ? Could it be that the fishing scene was filmed the same day, and the footage was in fact three years old ?

5. Even older, 38 seconds of film of Jules’ wedding at “Stately Duane Manor,” that somehow neglects to mention either when it took place – suggesting it could have been last month, when it was in fact on Saturday 1 June 2002 – or any explanation as to why it had never been shown before, when it could obviously have been included in the original September 2002 DVD.

Total, 1 minute and 20 seconds of film that I presume is intended as a riposte to my claim that the film-makers have pulled a disappearing act. Since there is no evidence in these 80 seconds that any of it was recorded in 2006 – or 2005 – or 2004 – my claim stands. It would stand even if the entire 15-minute section consisted of film of the Naudets and Hanlon unambiguously shot in 2006, because the same question would apply: this is what we waited five years for ?

Hanlon’s narration, or some of it, might be recent, but we still have virtually nothing from the brothers: we know as little about them today as we did in 2001. Interviews might tell us how they feel about – for example – Iraq, Afghanistan, the USA or just the state of the film industry they claim to be a part of. They never give any: they are still an enigma. This links to a picture of their mother, Shiva, who gets a credit in the "9/11" film : is she Indian ? Jules certainly looks like at least one of his parents might be Indian; Gédéon less so. Is Jules the father of the (misspelled) Julien in the photograph ? Who knows ? Certainly not us. Have the brothers become naturalised US citizens yet, 20-odd years later ? How many UFA scholarships has "9/11" funded ? Can we see one of their beneficiaries ? No we can’t. Self-publicity never was the Naudet way: that, or any other kind of publicity. What do their agents do for them ? That must be one of the easier jobs in the business.

The low profile continues, as does the failure of the Goldfish Pictures production company to actually produce any — other than a 15-minute coda to a film shot five years before, that does not even address the questions raised by it, let alone attempt to answer them. In 15 minutes, we could have been told whether there ever was a confirmed gas leak at Church and Lispenard: if yes, why they did nothing about it and left it unattended when the plane turned up; if not, what they were all still standing around waiting for when the plane turned up. We still want answers: your move, “film-makers.”

... and later

... to which challenge the film "In God's Name" (December 2007) appears to be a response, but that film in no way invalidates or outdates any of the above : that was the position at the time, and it still is the position. The Naudets and their protectors are still refusing to answer straightforward questions about a film shot in 2001 : the longer that continues, the more telling their silence. The following 2007 photograph publicising the film is presumably meant to demonstrate that the brothers are still in circulation, disproving my claim of their going underground, but it does no such thing — unless being in public means hanging out with the 14th Dalai Lama, and that only because it was arranged by a media giant like CBS. From burger-chomping, hard-drinking New York firemen to a Nobel Prize-winning personification of the Bodhisattva and reincarnation of his thirteen predecessors (and a load of others with false names and identities (just like the Naudets, maybe) – Benedictus XVI, Alexei II, Rowan Cantuar, etc etc) : how dare I accuse them of hiding away from the ordinary public ?

What I had in mind was doing interviews with ordinary mortal journalists, to be published in newspapers and magazines or broadcast on radio, TV or the Internet. "In God's Name" proves my point : if the Naudets are now living in a world where they meet people the vast majority of their own followers have no chance of ever getting close to, they are as totally removed from normal people as the religious icons themselves. There are indeed many questions raised by an event like 9/11 to which the Naudets could give us answers : not questions to do with morality or spirituality, and not by asking an Orthodox Patriarch or a Shinto High Priest, but by telling us what they know themselves about what happened that day. They were there – they saw it and filmed it, and I think they knew it was going to happen. None of the leaders in their film could give them absolution for something like that, if that is what they went looking for and why they made the film : as an act of penance.