ÿþ<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <!-- saved from url=(0068)http://frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%20Home%20Page.htm --><!-- saved from url=(0040)http://www.spingola.com/jules_naudet.htm --><!-- saved from url=(0040)http://www.spingola.com/jules_naudet.htm --><HTML><HEAD><TITLE>JULES NAUDET</TITLE> </SCRIPT> <META content=en-us http-equiv=Content-Language> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2920.0" name=GENERATOR> <META content=FrontPage.Editor.Document name=ProgId> <META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD> <BODY background=""> <DIV align=center> <CENTER> <TABLE bgColor=#E1E1E1 border=15 borderColor=FFBF18 cellPadding=4 cellSpacing=3 id=AutoNumber1 style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" width="90%"> <TBODY> <TR> <TD dir=ltr width="100%"> <P align=center dir=ltr><FONT color=#111111 face=Impact size=7><U> <CENTER>JULES NAUDET'S FIRST PLANE SHOT WAS STAGED</U><BR> <CENTER><FONT color=#2222CO face="Myriad Web" size=6>A clue to the truth about 9/11 ?</FONT> <P align=center><IMG border=3 height=203 id=im src="JULES NAUDET Home Page_files/Impact.bmp" width=500></P></CENTER> <P align=left dir=ltr><FONT color=#993300 face="Times New Roman" size=4></FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=4> <CENTER><FONT color=#FF1F10 face="Georgia" size=5><B>LESLIE RAPHAEL</B><BR><FONT color=#FF1F10 face="Georgia" size=5>May 2011</B> <P align=justify dir=ltr><FONT color=#111111 face="Times New Roman" size=4>Congratulations ! You are reading the one 9/11 website with a hope in hell of getting us somewhere : one with some actual hard documentary (literally) evidence behind it  the picture above, for a start  and one that names names. You won't find the Illuminati in this one ; you won't find the claim that no planes ever hit the Trade Center, because I don't believe that ; you won't find your time wasted with "proofs" of demolitions carried out by folk who are never identified, even by speculation.<BR><BR>Conversely, you won't find the classified or declassified documents some folk seem to think would have to be involved in any exposure of 9/11. Nor will you find references to anonymous contacts or informants in the US Government or in journalism : you won't find a Deep Throat in this story. Nor will you get dissertations on physics or engineering or architecture or links to websites on any of them. This article was written by a layman, using simple common sense and average intelligence, looking at what appears on the screen (and, where appropriate, what doesn't) in an alleged documentary film about 9/11, and describing it, pointing out the suspiciously convenient, the strangely absent and the just plain bizarre. Special qualifications are not strictly necessary to see something that is being shoved right in your face, as insultingly as possible, and it is not clever to just ignore the crudely obvious because of its crude obviousness. When the room contains an elephant, I strongly believe in stating that fact.<BR><BR>I have, however, had great difficulty over the last nine years having that simple idea accepted, and my arguments taken seriously, by people who seem to think their esoteric skills are essential to getting at the truth about 9/11, and that "ordinary" observers of what happened that day  or of this film  have nothing to contribute. The effect of that proposition, as arrogant as it is brainless, is as plain to see, a decade later, as the proverbial elephant : no progress, no exposure, no convictions. That is the contribution of these elites and their poisonous attitudes : that, and their royalty cheques for books and articles and films exploiting a mass murder, and their vested financial interest in spinning out the mysteries and <B>not</B> uncovering the truth. Do I have a chip on my shoulder ? Not really : just anger and frustration at people who consider themselves brilliant journalists, and may well deserve that estimation most of the time, but not when it comes to the Naudets, when they behave like complete idiots.<BR><BR> Step 1 : anyone interested in 9/11, no matter what your views on who did it, should already have a DVD copy of the film "9/11," directed by Jules and Gédéon Naudet and James Hanlon. If you think you're an expert on 9/11, but you don't have that film, you're not. Everyone who cares about what happened that day, and wants to find out the truth, should have a copy, and should have some familiarity with the film. If you're not prepared to spend a few dollars or pounds, or give up some of your time and make a bit of effort, stop reading now and go elsewhere, to put it politely. There is a version of the film posted on YouTube, but that is a different edit [and see <B>Postscript 2</B> below] : this article is based on the DVD cut, and tells you exactly where to find all the stills and sequences under discussion. You could just take my word that what is shown here is in the DVD, and I have not faked or misrepresented anything, but having the original is better, and would help you follow my arguments. This is not an easy read, and I will not pretend otherwise : 9/11 is not an easy subject.<BR><BR> Whoever you think was behind 9/11, we can agree a major aspect of it is government propaganda, and a major aspect of that, since the days of Eisenstein and Riefenstahl, has been film. This article is about named individuals who had roles to play in that part of 9/11, who knew what was going to happen, knew thousands were going to be killed, did nothing about it and have probably never had one twinge of conscience ever since. They didn't kill anybody, but their foreknowledge makes them legally liable. Reading this is a necessary step on the long road towards making them pay for it.<BR><BR>I take as a given that anyone reading this is susceptible to rational thought  an assumption that does not apply to millions of people, most notably in a country with the most idiotic gun laws on the planet and an attachment to capital punishment given up long ago by most modern civilised states, and even some uncivilised ones. If the mere suggestion that Americans might have done 9/11 is enough to make you spout gibbering hysterical hatred  and it does with some folk  my ideas are probably not good for you, and I don't want to listen to yours. If you think only Arabs could have done it, and you refuse to listen to anything else, that's not patriotism : it's racism, which is obviously still endemic in American society.<BR><BR> When American Airlines Flight 11 smashed into the top of the north face of World Trade Center No. 1 in New York at 8.46 AM EDT on the morning of September 11, 2001, a French photographer called Jules Naudet captured the impact on his camcorder. The official story was and is that for weeks past he and his brother Gédéon had been making a documentary film about New York firefighters based at Duane Street, seven blocks north of the Trade Center, and he had been out on the street filming them that morning, another seven blocks north of the firehouse, after a call about a suspected gas leak came in around 8.30.<BR><BR>As he filmed the firemen, they suddenly heard the unusual sound of a jet roaring past low above them, and Naudet miraculously managed to snatch a recording of the plane hitting the tower, soon to be shown countless times in news bulletins and elsewhere, for months and years to come. That story is as far as most folk go : in fact, most folk don't even know that much, but the few who are aware of the Naudet shot tend to go no further than the official publicity. Why would they ? It's a plausible enough story : they would never dream of questioning its innocence or authenticity, and at the time almost no-one did, including me.<BR><BR> A year later, when the full-length film by the brothers was shown on British TV and around the world, I read for the first time the word "unique" applied to the above Flight 11 impact shot included in it, and my first reaction was incredulity that no-one else had filmed it. A Boeing 767 is flown straight into the joint tallest building in New York in broad daylight, visible to potentially millions of people, and only one person gets it on film ? Eventually, having failed to find any references to any other film, I accepted that it must be true, and that the question had now changed. There must be reasons why no-one else filmed it, and reasons why Naudet <B>did</B>.<BR><BR> The more I went into that question, and the more I investigated the circumstances, the more I came to realise, in a very gradual dawning of reality, that the Naudet story was a construct, put together to explain a piece of photography that was incredibly unlikely to have been accidental. My reasons for drawing that conclusion, and the implications that follow from it, are the main subject of this article.<BR><BR>I could exemplify by pointing out that, to my knowledge, the <B>only</B> firehouse in New York that had already been out on a call since 8.30 when the first 9/11 plane arrived just happened to be the one that was having a film made about it, and just happened to be the one located closest to the side of the building the plane hit, and that the only photographer in the city who filmed that event just happened to be out on the street with a perfect view of that building, unobstructed by other buildings, cars, fire trucks, people  so perfect a view he could capture the impact, after a 90-degree pan, no less, right in the centre of his picture.<BR><BR> A perfect view of the building, but not the whole building  only the top third of the north face : the part the plane hit, right in the centre. Were these firefighters actually fighting a fire at the time ? No  would they even have heard the plane ?  the call was about a gas leak, and they were dealing with it, as shown in the film and in this article, by standing around staring at the street, as if waiting for something  just before the plane turned up. The more of these pieces of "luck" that can be listed  and the list goes on and on  the more obvious it becomes that this story is not in fact remotely plausible, and that it was stuck together in bits as an invented pretext for how this unique piece of film came about.<BR><BR> My conclusion is that it came about because the photographer, like these alleged firemen, <B>knew</B> what was going to happen at 8.46 : luck had nothing to do with it. There are 200 firehouses in New York : Jules Naudet did not pick one miles away from the Trade Center, and he wasn't stuck in the toilet on Tuesday morning when the news came in  on TV  about a plane hitting one of the towers, leaving him to rush out and film the burning tower, but no plane, like a thousand other cameramen. That story belongs to reality : the Naudet story is straight out of a Hollywood film  and they made one out of it  but they called it a documentary.<BR><BR> It should be uncontroversial to point out that whoever was behind 9/11 would have wanted the first impact captured on film. If it was who the official story blames, it would be unthinkable to go to those lengths to achieve that result but get no film evidence of their greatest coup against their enemies. At least one film record of that event would have come from those who brought it about, and knew it was going to happen : <B>their</B> film would not have been a lucky accident. But if Al Qaeda, who we are told had planned to video their attack on the USS <I>Cole</I> the previous year, filmed Flight 11's impact from somewhere in New York, that film has never surfaced, and we can be sure it would, like all their subsequent propaganda videos and cassettes.<BR><BR> What we have instead is the Naudet shot, and since it is unique, that fact alone tells us that <B>this</B> is the film from those who wanted the first obscenity of the 9/11 sequence recorded, and that Jules Naudet was operating on their behalf when he recorded it. If at least one film had to be from the perpetrators, but we only <B>have</B> one film, what does that tell us ? Who was behind it ? This does not necessarily mean the Naudets were working for Al Qaeda : it could imply that someone else was responsible, or that Al Qaeda is a complete fiction, or that even if partly authentic, it was not, or not alone, involved in 9/11.<BR><BR> This, of course, is only one general observation, added to the case against the Naudets, which I regard as the main hope of those of us still fighting for the truth about 9/11, nearly a decade later, against apathy and cynicism on our own side as well as an endless barrage of lies and drivel coming from the other. There must be an understandable reluctance to join the small minority of us who treat the Naudets as key : if I am right about them, it means anyone who has ignored this aspect since 2002 or earlier must be something of a gullible fool, and who wants to admit that ? I am not asking for admissions, but for arguments against my case, without which  and I have yet to hear any  I intend to carry on proposing it and advertising it, no matter how hard it is to get the message over.<BR><BR>I am not giving up the Naudet story because of something as ridiculous as salving other folks' wounded pride. Or because of the efforts of deliberate disinformationists : and it would be stretching credulity to imagine the folk behind something like 9/11 (or Dallas) didn't have their time-wasters already planted all over the opposition, before the event even happened  they would have to be incredibly stupid <B>not</B> to do that, running the information war on <B>both</B> sides. How many of the best-known names in the 9/11 field are fakes, working for the ones who planned it ? Or is the right question "How many are <B>genuine</B> ?" This writer is  but then, I would say that, wouldn't I ? <BR><BR>There is only one interpretation of the Naudet film : they knew it was going to happen, they knew some of the people who made it happen, and they are our best hope of exposing and bringing to justice those murdering scum  while Obama tries one pathetic diversion after another : the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed pantomime, the long-running Libyan farce  or, when that failed to put bums on seats (not to be confused with the bums running US foreign policy), the Osama Snuff Revue. How ironic  brought to the Final Court of Justice by a black sheriff, but not the one in "Blazing Saddles." The folk who did 9/11 are still in business, carrying on where Bush left off, as if 2008 never happened, and unless someone can claim to be on the verge of getting Cheney and company in court, facing charges, I would humbly suggest paying more attention meanwhile to the Naudet brothers and their extremely strange 9/11 film.<BR><BR>I am not a professional journalist, or even an amateur. I have spent the last nine years trying to get people like that to open their eyes and look at the case, so that <B>they</B> could use their talents and resources to take it further : I never had either the intention or the ability to do more than draw attention to the subject. I will say that I don't particularly want popularity from people with a 5-second attention span, or who expect me to offer them an instant, tidy, perfect solution to something like 9/11. Unlike that, or its Naudet spin-off, real life is messy, and fragmentary, and disjointed, and confused : it does not play out like a film. Anyone looking for 9/11's Sherlock Holmes or Columbo to tie up all the loose ends and get all the guilty parties nailed will not find him here : in fact, I want them, and the 9/11 quitters, to do the same as the perpetrators  and their protectors in politics and the media.<BR><BR>BBC, ITN, CNN, Fox, CBS, ABC, Times, New York Times, Washington Post, Guardian, Telegraph, Cameron, Blair, Brown, Bush, Cheney, Obama and the rest of you can all go straight to hell. None of your nonsense has had the slightest effect on my determination to stick to the subject, and get the Naudets and their associates convicted. I am not giving up : I never expected a result in minutes, or days, or weeks, and I am in this for the duration, meaning as long as it takes.<BR><BR>As for those aware of the Naudet story, but who have chosen to reject it or ignore it, I promise you now you <B>will</B> come back to it, and you <B>will</B> finally listen to it, when you find your own methods and ideas are going nowhere, and have achieved nothing since 2001, if achievement means movement towards a prosecution, or getting the media to address the subject seriously, or just stop lying about it. I see no evidence of any of that : meanwhile the brothers are out there, hoping we all  or most of us  stay clueless and misguided for ever. Jules and Gédéon Naudet  you are going to jail, and Myers, Tenet and the rest of the gang are heading the same way. Your confidence in our stupidity and your own safety is fatally misplaced. You've made nearly ten years : it could end today. Keep hoping it doesn't. <BR> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR> <P align=center><B>A precedent</B><BR><BR> <IMG border=3 height=179 src="JULES NAUDET Home Page_files/Saigon 1952.bmp" width=235><BR><BR> <P align=justify dir=ltr><FONT color=#111111 face="Times New Roman" size=4>This photograph was taken in the Place du Théâtre in Saigon, Vietnam, on the morning of 8 January 1952, at a time when Churchill was in power in London, Truman in Washington, Stalin in Moscow and Auriol in Paris, and Vietnam had two rival governments, the one based in Saigon a French "Associated State." "Reds' time bomb rips Saigon center," read the New York Times headline two days later, in an article by Tillman Durdin. The photographer, Jean Salzé  about whom I can discover virtually nothing  worked for Life magazine, whose 28 January issue claimed the bomb had been "planted by Viet Minh Communists." This was a lie : the bombing  and another one two minutes later, and others over the next two years  was the work of Trinh Minh The, leader of the anti-Communist Lien Minh militia, used in 1954 by the CIA's Edward Lansdale to help bolster the post-partition regime of Ngo Dinh Diem.<BR><BR> The novelist (and former intelligence operative) Graham Greene was living in Saigon at the time, and incorporated the bombing into his book "The Quiet American." In "Ways of Escape," Greene asked the simple question of exactly how "The Life photographer at the moment of the explosion was so well placed that he was able to take an astonishing and horrifying photograph which showed the body of a trishaw driver still upright after his legs had been blown off." His later research into the bombing, using contacts in Saigon, provided the answer that Salzé had been tipped off by someone (whether Vietnamese, or French, or American) who knew what was about to happen, and when and where  or the photographer might easily have been blown up himself ; the same folk helped Durdin write his New York Times story.<BR><BR> Greene died in 1991 ; had he lived to see 9/11, would he have recognised the Salzé method in the footage shot in New York by another Frenchman, Jules Naudet ? In 1952, Salzé did not photograph the actual moment of explosion : that would have been pushing it. By 2001, having committed another half a century of crimes with barely a slap on the wrist, Lansdale's successors scrapped the discretion and had Naudet film the whole thing  not just the aftermath but the actual event. Exactly how did Naudet come to be "so well placed" that not one other person in a city of eight million did what he did ? Did Naudet, like Salzé, have foreknowledge ? Was the informant, like Salzé's, in the pay of US intelligence ? Was the purpose of the exercise, like Salzé's, to provide propaganda for western imperialism and a pretext for American interference ?<BR> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR><BR><B>Postscript 1</B>. As of March 2011, Richard Komárek, a producer with Czech National TV, is working on a 10th anniversary documentary with the English title "Playing 9/11," an examination of the film shot that day, and specifically the three shots of the first plane  by Naudet, Hlava and Staehle. The latter two agreed to take part ; Naudet was approached, but declined. I was also invited to contribute an interview, but have yet to make a final decision.<BR><BR> <B>Postscript 2</B>. The allegedly entire, uncut Naudet video footage, supplied by them to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and made generally available by NIST after a Freedom of Information request, is now downloadable  but only via bittorrent  at : <A href="http://911datasets.org/index.php/STorrent:AYR3RPCMNTWANELI2TNIQ7TTINDHXVVJ"> http://911datasets.org/index.php/STorrent:AYR3RPCMNTWANELI2TNIQ7TTINDHXVVJ</A> Future editions of this article, with particular reference to Part 2, will incorporate the reassessments made necessary by this previously unseen evidence.<BR><BR> <P align=center><IMG border=3 height=203 id=im src="JULES NAUDET Home Page_files/Rooftop.bmp" width=500><BR><FONT color=#111111 face="Times New Roman" size=3><P align=justify dir=ltr><BR><B>Eight days</B> before 9/11, one of the Naudets gives us a view  by totally ironic accident  of all three buildings destroyed. While accidentally 40 feet above Duane Street firehouse. Accidentally squeezed into a cherrypicker with two large firemen. Accidentally filming in the right direction, then holding this view throughout the scene. Accidentally positioning the North Tower antenna in the exact centre of the shot. Accidentally showing all of all three buildings. Accidentally keeping both heads from blocking the view, well out of the way at the sides. Accidentally never saying one word about the buildings dominating the view. Definitely not deliberate  purely accidental. Maybe a tragic premonition, at most. <BR><BR>Or maybe the photographer knew for a fact it was eight days.</P> ========================================================================================== <P align=center><FONT color=#FF1F10 face="Times New Roman" size=4>Dedicated to Jim Raphael (1916-2007) : father, socialist, fireman.<BR> <P align=justify dir=ltr><FONT color=#111111><U><B>About the author</U></B><BR> <P align=left><IMG border=3 height=112 src="JULES NAUDET Home Page_files/Self Portrait.bmp" width=87><BR><BR><FONT color=#111111 face="Times New Roman" size=4><P align=justify dir=ltr>Leslie Raphael was born in 1951 in Scotland and still lives there. For more, or to offer comment (or information on the Naudets, Hanlon or others you may feel played a role), email <A href="mailto:lesraphael@hotmail.co.uk">lesraphael@hotmail.co.uk</A> <FONT color=#111111 face="Times New Roman" size=4>or phone (00 44) 07517 067 742.<BR><BR> <DIV> <P align=justify>Special thanks to Frank Tolopko for hosting this article, and for all his support ; thanks also to the many others offering help and encouragement, and for their contribution to getting the truth about the Naudets on record (especially the ones who were saying it before me).<BR><BR>Spread the word ! Read the article, digest it, discuss it, publicise it, and if you have a website, link to this one (<A href="http://www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911">www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911</A>).<BR><BR> ========================================================================================== <P align=justify dir=ltr><U><B>Contents</U></B><BR>1. <A href="http://www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%201.htm#Introduction">Introduction</A></A>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;10. <A href="http://www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%2010.htm#What_next">What next ?</A><BR> 2. <A href="http://www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%202.htm#The_Flight_11_shot_in_39_cuts">The Flight 11 shot in 39 cuts</A>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<A href="http://www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%20App%201.htm#Appendix_1">Appendix 1</A>:&nbsp;&nbsp;Pavel Hlava and Wolfgang Staehle<BR> 3. <A href="http://www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%203.htm#Conveniences">Conveniences</A>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<A href="http://www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%20App%202.htm#Appendix_2">Appendix 2</A>:&nbsp;&nbsp;The 9/11 film industry<BR> 4. <A href="http://www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%204.htm#Maps">Maps</A>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<A href="http://www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%20App%203.htm#Appendix_3">Appendix 3</A>:&nbsp;&nbsp;The Naudets in 2006 ... and later<BR> 5. <A href="http://www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%205.htm#Objections_and_answers">Objections and answers</A>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<A href="http://www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%20App%204.htm#Appendix_4">Appendix 4</A>:&nbsp;&nbsp;Evidence from the film<BR> 6. <A href="http://www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%206.htm#Photographic_demonstration">Photographic demonstration</A> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<A href="http://www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%20App%205.htm#Appendix_5">Appendix 5</A>:&nbsp;&nbsp;A letter from Des Browne<BR> 7. <A href="http://www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%207.htm#Elsewhere_in_the_Naudet_film">Elsewhere in the Naudet film</A>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<A href="http://www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%20App%206.htm#Appendix_6">Appendix 6</A>:&nbsp;&nbsp;The film contract<BR> 8. <A href="http://www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%208.htm#The_Northwoods_context">The Northwoods context</A>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<A href="http://www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%20App%207.htm#Appendix_7">Appendix 7</A>:&nbsp;&nbsp;9/11 observations<BR>9. <A href="http://www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911/JULES%20NAUDET%209.htm#The_9/11_Convictions">The 9/11 convictions</A><BR><BR></FONT>==========================================================================================<P align=center class=MsoNormal><FONT color=#111111 face="Times New Roman" size=4>"They say there is always a witness for history. I guess ... that day, we were chosen to be the witness"<BR> Jules Naudet (03:51 into the film). Chosen by whom ? The Great Scriptwriter in the Sky ? Or ...<BR><BR> <CENTER> <TABLE border=0 borderColor=#111111 cellPadding=0 cellSpacing=0 id=AutoNumber3 style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" width="50%"> <TD width="100%"><IMG border=0 height=315 id=im src="JULES NAUDET Home Page_files/Rumsfeld-Myers.bmp" width=500><BR><BR><BR></TD></TR> <DIV align=center> <CENTER><TBODY> <TR> <TD dir=ltr width="100%"><P align=center class=MsoNormal><FONT color=#111111 face="Times New Roman" size=2.8>First published September 2002.This edition May 2011.<BR>Copyright © by Leslie Raphael 2008. All Rights Reserved.<BR>This article is under copyright protection and cannot be reproduced without permission of the author. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER></DIV></BODY></HTML>