the case for the Naudet film being fraudulent stands on its merits: you don't need degrees in physics, engineering or anything else to follow my arguments, and I am a non-graduate myself. Anyone applying an open, common-sense, rational mind to the facts presented here should reach the same conclusions I did. And these are mostly facts: there is nothing speculative in my list of 69 conveniences in the Flight 11 shot ? they are all solid, concrete factual observations. The speculation is in trying to construct an explanation for them ? a perfectly valid exercise, as long as fact and conjecture are distinguished Did they even get asked why, when they knew what they had recorded, they didn't ensure a copy got to those who needed it before they carried on filming their exciting new project? Do photo-journalists get a pass on withholding evidence when they get caught up in the heat of the moment? It's almost as if they wanted the world to get a good repeated viewing of the second tower attack before they released their own. Here's something to ponder on. If the Naudet brothers really did film a passenger jet flying into the north tower, they and the NYPD crew they were filming knew immediately what had happened, yet even though they headed straight to the towers and continued making their documentary, it seems they never informed anybody in command what they had seen and filmed, otherwise why would everyone on the ground not have been