Is The "Fireman's Video" Fake?

Six Reasons To Question The Authenticity Of Jules Naudet's "Fireman’s Video"

Opening Comment From The Author

In order to fully appreciate this article the reader should first consider the WTC2 attack and the myriad of fraudulent videos it has spawned. These video fakes have long been exposed and documented by numerous 911 researchers.

Once the reader is fully aware the scale of the WTC2 video cover-up the analysis and conclusions presented herein should come as no surprise.

1 - "Fireman’s Video" Was Recorded Under False Pretences

It seems the firecrew Jules Naudet was filming on the morning of 911 were called out on a bogus "odour of gas" call to a location that had a convenient view of WTC1’s north face.

Just prior to the "Flight 11" aircrafts impact with WTC1 the firemen can be seen idle, loitering, as if they are waiting for something to happen. Chief Pfeifer is noticeably restless, pointlessly sliding his left hand in and out of his pocket and fiddling with the red "gas-o-meter".

When the "Flight 11" aircraft shows up the cameraman does not point his camera skyward to locate the source of noise, unlike the firemen and pedestrians who can be seen tilting their heads upwards. Just before the "Flight 11" aircraft collides with WTC1 the cameraman suddenly swings his camera horizontally to the left and catches the last moment of the aircrafts flight and the subsequent fireball.

This relatively short impact sequence was filmed at a high shutter speed. But the rest of Jules Naudet's recordings on that day were at a relatively low shutter speed, even though the ambient lighting conditions were good throughout the day and they wouldn’t necessitate a slower shutter speed for correct exposure.

These observations strongly suggest that both the recording and set up of this incident were planned. The alleged cameraman, Jules Naudet and the firecrew, had foreknowledge of the impending catastrophe. If the recording of this event was arranged then it is possible that the appearance of the "Flight 11" aircraft in the video was arranged, in terms of its insertion during post production.

2 - “Fireman’s Video” Impact Sequence Shows Visual Anomalies

A close look at the impact explosion created by the impact of the "Flight 11" aircraft compared to the resultant gash reveals an anomaly. In the graphic below you can see that the impact explosion is s-shaped in appearance, but the resulting gash is v-shaped in appearance:

Overlaying these two images as a GIF animation shows that the impact explosion does not correspond with the resultant gash:

Examination of other WTC1 photographs and videos show no damage to the façade in the corresponding positions where the impact explosion dust-pimples appear. It was as if the dust-pimples just “happened” on the surface of the tower and were then washed away with the main explosion.

One possible explanation for this irregular explosion is that the tower was hit by a volley of small missiles. If this is correct it might go some way to explain the rather wide and rounded dust-pimple-like appearance of the impact-explosion, but it would still leave the problem of no visible traces of corresponding damage to the towers façade.

The left-hand side of the impact explosion seems to be curving downward and the right hand portion has been orphaned from the main part. I’ve marked the gap between the main area and the “orphan” with a red arrow (below). I've also marked the un-shadowed area of the tower, which is delineated by the orphans shadow and the main explosions shadow, with another red arrow (below).

This seemingly unaffected area is in roughly the same position as where the starboard wing of the “Flight 11" aircraft should have struck the tower (assuming it was a Boeing 767-200). It was as if the starboard wing of the aircraft forgot to impact against the towers façade yet the aftermath reveals a massive gapping hole (marked with two white arrows) where there was no impact explosion.

In comparison to the WTC2 impact explosion the WTC1 impact explosion taken from same time relative frame shows an explosion that is wider, more irregular and larger in comparison to the WTC2 explosion. We should bear in mind that both collision scenarios are similar with near identical towers and identical aircraft travelling at similar speeds / flight paths.

3 - Eyewitness Reports Inconsistent With "Fireman’s Video" Recording

The analysis here shows that the "Flight 11" aircraft was similar in size to a Boeing 737NG. But the eyewitness reports contradict this by saying that they saw / heard a "non-commercial aircraft", a "small plane" and even a "missile" approaching and colliding with WTC1.

4 - FBI Confiscated The Naudet's "Fireman’s Video" Prior To Release

The following quote comes from "9/11 The Big Lie" by Thierry Meyssan.

"The Naudet Brothers had continued filming at the Word Trade Centre all that day and their video was not released until 13 hours later by Gamma agency. […] That very evening, the FBI were waiting at the home of brothers Jules and Gideon Naudet who had been in Manhattan at the time of the crashes. The FBI confiscated five hours of video recordings, filmed by the two journalists in the interior of the WTC towers and on the platforms outside. Only 6 minutes of recordings, corresponding to the crash of the first plane, were returned to them."

That the video recording had supposedly been in the possession of US government agents prior to its release through Gamma Press is enough to raise doubts over its authenticity. It would not have been difficult for the video to have been manipulated by the FBI or another government agency.

5 - Analysis of "Fireman’s Video" Soundtrack Raises Questions Over Authenticity

The official version of events would lead us to believe that the "Kamikaze" Arab hijackers had the engines of their Boeing 767-200 set at maximum power in order to hit the WTC1 tower as fast as possible so as to inflict as much damage as possible. But we do not hear "screaming jet engines" in the "Fireman’s Video". As the "Flight 11" aircraft passes abeam the firecrew we certainly hear a jet engine noise that most of us are familiar with, but in this case the engine noise is not consistent with jet engines at a high throttle setting whilst at a low altitude. It sounds more like the engines were at a low throttle setting on the approach to WTC1.

Just before the "Flight 11" aircraft hits WTC1 the jet engine noise fades away to a quiet droning sound. As it does so we begin to hear verbal exclamations from the firecrew.

Is it coincidence that we hear no street noise and no dialogue from the firecrew as the "Flight 11" aircraft approaches WTC1 and then at the same time that we begin to hear street noise and dialogue from the firecrew that the jet noise fades away to a quiet droning sound?

It is conceivable that a jet engine sound could have been added to the original recording to give the impression of a large passenger jet flying low and close to the firecrew. That added noise might then have been faded out to allow verbal exclamations from the firecrew to be heard just as the "Flight 11" aircraft collided with WTC1.

6 - Ginny Carr WTC1 Impact Audio Recording Contradicts "Fireman’s Video" Soundtrack

The Ginny Carr WTC1 strike recording does not reveal an engine noise that is consistent with a large, low flying passenger jet at a high engine throttle setting that would be consistent with the official "Kamikaze" Arab hijacker version of events. The sound is more consistent with a relatively smaller engine at a low throttle setting and is quieter than it should have sounded had it been produced by large jet engines. The sound from this recording has little or no similarity with the noise that should have been produced by a low flying passenger jet with the engines at a high throttle setting. The Ginny Carr WTC1 strike recording can be downloaded here.

Conclusion

The “Fireman’s Video” is almost certainly fake, both visually and acoustically. The "Flight 11" aircraft could have been inserted into the video and there is a good chance that even the resulting impact explosion has been modified or fabricated. The "Fireman’s Video" is nothing more than a propaganda piece, the purpose of which was to make the masses believe that a large aircraft had collided with WTC1 while concealing the true nature of the object or objects that actually hit the tower.

July 2006