126

36 MSM Voices Reported Explosions on 9/11 A review of the television news coverage on September 11th 2001

Ted Walter and Graeme MacQueen

The widely held belief that the Twin Towers collapsed as a result of the airplane impacts and the resulting fires is, unbeknownst to most people, a revisionist theory. Among individuals who witnessed the event firsthand, the more prevalent hypothesis was that the Twin Towers had been brought down by massive explosions.

This observation was first made 14 years ago in the article, 118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers.

A review of interviews conducted with 503 members of the New York Fire Department (FDNY) in the weeks and months after 9/11 revealed that 118 of them described witnessing what they interpreted that day to be explosions.

Only 10 FDNY members were found describing the destruction in ways supportive of the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.

The interviews of fire marshal John Coyle and firefighter Christopher Fenyo explicitly support this finding.

Coyle remarked in his interview:

I thought it was exploding, actually. That’s what I thought for hours afterwards… Everybody I think at that point still thought these things were blown up.”

Similarly, Fenyo recalled in his interview:

At that point, a debate began to rage [about whether to continue rescue operations in the other, still-standing tower] because the perception was that the building looked like it had been taken out with charges.”

News reporters constitute another group of individuals who witnessed the event firsthand and whose accounts were publicly documented.

While many people have seen a smattering of news clips on the internet in which reporters describe explosions, there has never been, as far as we know, a systematic attempt to collect these news clips and analyze them.

We decided to take on this task for two reasons. First, we wanted to know just how prevalent the explosion hypothesis was among reporters. Second, anticipating that this would be the more prevalent hypothesis, we wanted to determine exactly how it was supplanted by the hypothesis of fire-induced collapse.

In this article, we present our findings related to the first question. In a subsequent article, we will examine how the hypothesis of fire-induced collapse so quickly supplanted the originally dominant explosion hypothesis.

Television Coverage Compiled

To determine how prevalent the explosion hypothesis was among reporters, we set out to review as much continuous news coverage as we could find from the major television networks, cable news channels, and local network affiliates covering the events in New York.

Through internet searches, we found continuous news coverage from 11 different television networks, cable news channels, and local network affiliates. These included the networks ABC, CBS, and NBC; cable news channels CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and CNBC; and local network affiliates WABC, WCBS, and WNBC.

We also incorporated coverage from New York One (NY1), a New York-based cable news channel owned by Time Warner (now Spectrum), which we grouped with the local network affiliates into a local channel category.

Unfortunately, we were not able to find coverage spanning most of the day for every channel. Thus, while the collection of news coverage we compiled is extensive, it is not comprehensive. To fill in the gaps where possible, we included excerpts of coverage that aired later in the day if we found that coverage to be relevant.

We also included one excerpt from USA Today’s coverage that we found to be relevant and three excerpts from an afternoon press conference with Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Governor George Pataki that aired on almost every channel. In general, the times at which these excerpts aired are unknown, though in some cases we were able to identify an approximate time.

The news coverage we compiled and reviewed totaled approximately 70 hours.

Table 1: Television Coverage Compiled

Note: We invite anyone who has portions of the television coverage we were not able to find to send them to us at [email protected]. We will incorporate anything we receive and update this article accordingly. For anyone who wishes to replicate our work, the entire collection of footage can be downloaded here.

Criteria for Defining ‘Explosion’ Versus ‘Non-Explosion’ Reporters

We sought to answer one main question in our review of the news coverage: How many reporters described the occurrence of explosions — both the raw number of reporters and as a percentage of all reporters who covered the Twin Towers’ destruction — and what was the nature of their reporting?

To answer this question, we needed to establish clear criteria for identifying what we will call “explosion reporters” and “non-explosion reporters.”

We should make clear that this article addresses the statements of reporters only and does not address the statements of anchors, except in the case of one anchor (CNN’s Aaron Brown) who had a direct view of the Twin Towers.

In our next article, we will address statements made by anchors, who were also interpreting the Twin Towers’ destruction but without having witnessed it firsthand.

Because the airplane impacts were often referred to as explosions, we were careful to exclude any instances where it was not absolutely clear that the reporter was referring only to the destruction of the Twin Towers.

As we studied the news coverage and began to recognize patterns in how the Twin Towers’ destruction was reported, we developed three separate categories of reporting that would classify someone as an “explosion reporter”:

  1. eyewitness reporting
  2. narrative reporting
  3. source-based reporting.

Below we provide definitions of each.

Eyewitness Reporting

“Eyewitness reporting” is when a reporter is an eyewitness with a direct view of or in close proximity to the destruction of one or both of the Twin Towers and perceives an explosion or explosions in conjunction with the destruction — or perceives one or both of the towers as exploding, blowing up, blowing, or erupting.

Although we usually excluded the word “boom,” which could apply either to an explosion or to a collapse, we included it in one case because the totality of what the reporter (Nina Pineda) described indicated that she viewed the event as being explosion-based.

We did not include reporters who described only a “shaking” or “trembling” of the ground. The perception of the ground shaking was widespread and constitutes important eyewitness evidence, but it does not necessarily reveal much about how the reporter interpreted what she or he was witnessing.

Among reporters who mentioned demolition, we excluded the ones who merely compared the destruction to a demolition whenever it was clear that the reporter believed it to be a collapse caused by structural failure. We also excluded reporters who used the word “implode” or “implosion” whenever it was clear that the reporter used it to describe the building collapsing in on itself, as opposed to a demolition.

Here is an example of eyewitness reporting:

David Lee Miller, Fox News, 10:01 AM:

Suddenly, while talking to an officer who was questioning me about my press credentials, we heard a very loud blast, an explosion. We looked up, and the building literally began to collapse before us […] Not clear now is why this explosion took place. Was it because of the planes that, uh, two planes, dual attacks this morning, or was there some other attack, which is — there has been talk of here on the street.”

Narrative Reporting

“Narrative reporting” is when a reporter refers to the Twin Towers’ destruction as an explosion-based event when speaking of it in the course of his or her reporting. This could be a reporter who was an eyewitness to the destruction or a reporter who otherwise understood the destruction to be an explosion-based event.

The main distinction between eyewitness reporting and narrative reporting is that eyewitness reporting involves an eyewitness describing his or her direct perceptions, often uttering them spontaneously, while narrative reporting involves interpretation and/or outside influence, either of which inform the reporter’s developing narrative of what took place.

(In several cases, reporters go from engaging in eyewitness reporting around the time of the destruction to engaging in narrative reporting later on, with their direct perceptions informing their developing narrative).

This distinction is not meant to imply that one type of reporting is more valuable or reliable than another. In this analysis, eyewitness reporting tells us about what reporters perceived and immediately interpreted during, or shortly after, the event. It thus gives us more information about the actual event.

Narrative reporting, by contrast, tells us how reporters interpreted the event after having more time to process their perceptions and to synthesize additional information from other sources. Narrative reporting thus tells us about the collective narrative that was developing among reporters covering the event.

Here is an example of narrative reporting:

George Stephanopoulos, ABC, 12:27 PM:

“Well, Peter, I’m going to give you kind of a pool report from several of our correspondents down here of basically what happened down here in downtown New York between 9:45 and 10:45 when the two explosions and the collapse of the World Trade Center happened.

At the time, I was actually in the subway heading towards the World Trade Center right around Franklin Street. And after the first explosion the subway station started to fill with smoke. The subway cars started to fill with smoke, and the subways actually stopped.

They then diverted us around the World Trade Center to Park Place, which is one stop beyond the World Trade Center. We got to that train station at around 10:35, Peter, and it was a scene unlike I’ve ever seen before in my entire life.”

Source-based Reporting

“Source-based reporting” is when a reporter reports on the possible use of explosives based on information from government officials who said they suspected that explosives were used to bring down the Twin Towers.

Source-based reporting is similar to narrative reporting in that it involves outside influence. The main distinction is that source-based reporting is based on information from government sources. Information from government sources inherently indicates how government agencies were interpreting the event and is sometimes given extra weight by reporters and viewers.

Here is an example of source-based reporting:

Pat Dawson, NBC, 11:55 AM: 

Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department…[He] told me that shortly after 9 o’clock he had roughly 10 alarms, roughly 200 men in the building trying to effect rescues of some of those civilians who were in there, and that basically he received word of a possibility of a secondary device — that is, another bomb going off.

He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place. And then an hour after the first hit here, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here.

So obviously, according to his theory, he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building…But the bottom line is that, according to the Chief of Safety of the New York City Fire Department, he says that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions. And he said that there were literally hundreds if not thousands of people in those two towers when the explosions took place.”

Non-Explosion Reporters

The main criterion we developed for classifying someone as a “non-explosion reporter” was that she or he reported on the destruction of one or both of the Twin Towers and did not engage in any of the types of explosion reporting defined above.

To qualify as a non-explosion reporter, it was not necessary for the reporter to explicitly articulate the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. The mere absence of explosion reporting was enough to classify someone as a non-explosion reporter.

The challenge here lay not in identifying the absence of explosion reporting but in defining what constituted “reporting on the destruction.” In the end, we decided this should mean that the reporter had to describe the event of the destruction and not simply mention it in passing.

We should note that a reporter’s use of the word “collapse” did not necessarily qualify that person as a non-explosion reporter. Many explosion reporters described the occurrence of an explosion followed by collapse and they used the word “collapse” in their reporting (David Lee Miller, quoted above, is a prime example).

Thus, use of the word “collapse” is not incompatible with being an explosion reporter and did not qualify someone as a non-explosion reporter.

Also, if a reporter made a statement that qualified him or her as an explosion reporter and then subsequently made a statement explicitly supporting the fire-induced collapse hypothesis (which is the case for WABC’s Joe Torres), we classified this reporter as an explosion reporter because he or she engaged in some explosion reporting at some point during the day.

In this analysis, being classified as an “explosion reporter” does not imply a permanent stance. Rather, it just means that at some point in the day he or she reported the occurrence of explosions or the possible use of explosives in relation to the Twin Towers’ destruction.

Before we move on to the next section, it is important to note that because non-explosion reporters had to describe the event of the destruction and not simply mention it in passing, the only way to make a valid numerical comparison between explosion reporters and non-explosion reporters is to include only those who engaged in eyewitness reporting.

According to the criteria we developed, explosion reporters who engaged in narrative reporting were not describing the event of the destruction but rather were referring to it as an explosion-based event in the course of their reporting, i.e., in passing.

A comparable classification does not exist for non-explosion reporters, because we excluded those who only mentioned the event in passing (most commonly using the word “collapse”).

Numerical Analysis of ‘Explosion’ and ‘Non-Explosion’ Reporters

In total, we identified 36 explosion reporters and four non-explosion reporters in the approximately 70 hours of news coverage we reviewed. The 36 explosion reporters and their statements are listed in Appendix A. The four non-explosion reporters and their statements are listed in Appendix B. In addition, there were three borderline cases that we determined could not be clearly classified as either explosion or non-explosion reporters. Those cases are listed in Appendix C.

Of the 36 explosion reporters, 21 of them engaged in eyewitness reporting, 22 of them engaged in narrative reporting, and three of them engaged in source-based reporting. Recalling our definitions from above, this means the following:

  • 21 reporters witnessed what they perceived as an explosion or explosions during the destruction of the Twin Towers or they perceived the Twin Towers as exploding, blowing up, blowing, or erupting.
  • 22 reporters (eight of whom also fall into the eyewitness reporting category) referred to the Twin Towers’ destruction as an explosion or an explosion-based event when speaking of it in the course of their reporting.
  • Three reporters (two of whom also fall into the narrative reporting category) reported on the possible use of explosives based on information from government officials who said they suspected that explosives were used to bring down the Twin Towers.
  • Four reporters reported on the destruction of the Twin Towers and did not report explosions in any way (either having witnessed explosions, having interpreted the destruction as being an explosion-based event, or having been informed by government officials about the possible use of explosives).

In terms of the percentage of explosion and non-explosion reporters, 21 of the 25 reporters who directly witnessed the destruction of the Twin Towers, or 84%, either perceived an explosion or explosions or they perceived the Twin Towers as exploding, blowing up, blowing, or erupting. In comparison, four of the 25 reporters who directly witnessed the destruction of the Twin Towers, or 16%, did not report explosions in any way.

The tables below list each reporter and each instance of reporting according to the time at which each report was made.

Table 2A: Eyewitness Reporting by Explosion Reporters

Table 2B: Narrative Reporting by Explosion Reporters

Table 2C: Source-based Reporting by Explosion Reporters

Table 2D: Non-Explosion Reporters

How Reporters Reported the Twin Towers’ Destruction

The picture that unmistakably emerges is that the great majority of reporters who witnessed the destruction of the Twin Towers either perceived an explosion or perceived the towers as exploding.

This hypothesis of the Twin Towers’ destruction then continued to be prevalent among reporters covering the event, who essentially viewed the destruction of the towers as an explosion-based attack subsequent to the airplane strikes.

We learn from the source-based reporting that the same hypothesis was also held by officials in the FDNY, the New York Police Department (NYPD), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) — three of the most important agencies involved in the response to the attacks. In particular, with regard to the FBI, we are told the explosion hypothesis was the agency’s “working theory” as of late in the afternoon on 9/11.

Unlike members of the FDNY, most of whom provided their accounts during interviews conducted weeks or months after the event, it was the job of reporters to spontaneously communicate their perception and interpretation of events.

Thus, when their reporting is compiled into one record, we are left with a rich and largely unfiltered collective account of what took place. Considered alongside the FDNY oral histories, these reporters’ statements, in our view, constitute strong corroborating evidence that explosives were used to destroy the Twin Towers.

Regarding the four non-explosion reporters, in addition to the fact that there are so few of them, we find that their individual accounts add little support to the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.

Two of the reporters were quite far away from the Twin Towers at the time of their destruction relative to most of the explosion reporters: Drew Millhon was “about 10 to 12 blocks north of the World Trade Center,” at the intersection of Varick Street and Canal Street, while Bob Bazell was at St. Vincent’s hospital on West 12th Street, approximately two miles from the World Trade Center.

Meanwhile, Don Dahler, the only reporter who explicitly articulated the fire-induced collapse hypothesis, nonetheless likened the South Tower’s destruction to a controlled demolition, saying:

“The entire building has just collapsed as if a demolition team set off — when you see the old demolitions of these old buildings.”

The fourth non-explosion reporter, John Zito, was quite close to the South Tower when it came down. He did not describe an explosion, but he also did not attribute the destruction to a fire-induced collapse. It is worth noting that Ron Insana, whom Zito was with, vividly described seeing the building “exploding” and “blowing” and hearing a “noise associated with an implosion.”

Conclusion

Returning to the first question posed at the top of this article, we conclude that the hypothesis of explosions bringing down the Twin Towers was not only prevalent among reporters but was, in fact, the dominant hypothesis.

Furthermore, the 21 instances of eyewitness reporting, all of which contain spontaneous descriptions of the phenomena the reporters witnessed, strongly corroborate the overwhelming scientific evidence that explosives were used to destroy the Twin Towers.

In a subsequent article, we will examine how the hypothesis of fire-induced collapse so quickly supplanted the originally dominant explosion hypothesis.


Appendix A: Statements by 36 Explosion Reporters

These statements are organized by channel in the same order as presented in Table 1. Within each channel, they are organized chronologically based on the time of the first noted statement by each reporter. A video containing all statements by all 36 explosion reporters is available here.

1. George Stephanopoulos, ABC

12:27 PM, Narrative Reporting

“Well, Peter, I’m going to give you kind of a pool report from several of our correspondents down here of basically what happened down here in downtown New York between 9:45 and 10:45 when the two explosions and the collapse of the World Trade Center happened. At the time, I was actually in the subway heading towards the World Trade Center, right around Franklin Street. And after the first explosion the subway station started to fill with smoke. The subway cars started to fill with smoke, and the subways actually stopped. They then diverted us around the World Trade Center to Park Place, which is one stop beyond the World Trade Center. We got to that train station at around 10:35, Peter, and it was a scene unlike I’ve ever seen before in my entire life. As we tried to get out of the subway station and walk up into the street, it was pitch black, midnight black, snowing soot all down through downtown Manhattan. This was about two blocks from the World Trade Center. You couldn’t see a foot in front of your face at that time.”

2. Cynthia McFadden, ABC

5:56 PM, Narrative Reporting

“We’ve been told that all victims now who are taken out of the blast site are going to be taken here first. . . . Part of the problem initially was that when the first rescue workers went in — and we have talked to some of them, some of the second wave of rescue workers — the first wave of rescue workers who went in were trapped, many of them killed by the second blast. . . . There have been hundreds of people at area hospitals, as you note. But they don’t believe that anywhere near the full weight of this has yet been uncovered, that there are hundreds and thousands of people who have been injured in this blast, and that’s the people that they expect to bring here.”

3. Harold Dow, CBS

10:05 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“Yes, I arrived on the scene about an hour and a half ago. Believe it or not, there was another major explosion. The building itself, literally the top of it came down, sending smoke and debris everywhere. I tried to run to get away from all of the debris. A number of other people here are trapped in the subway here in a shoe store, trying to get away from most of the debris. It’s just an incredible sight.”

4. Tom Flynn, CBS

11:03, Eyewitness Reporting

“At that time, maybe 45 minutes into the taping that we were doing, which was maybe a half hour after, there was — it was an explosion. It was way up where the fire was. And the whole building at that point bellied out in flames, and everybody ran.”

5. Mika Brzezinski, CBS

11:15 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“Dan, we’re three blocks from the scene and we saw it all after the first two hits. We saw the explosion and also the collapse of the tower.”

6. Pat Dawson, NBC

11:55 AM, Source-based Reporting

“Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, who was obviously one of the first people here on the scene after those two planes were crashed into the side — we assume — of the World Trade Center towers, which used to be behind me over there. Chief Albert Turi told me that he was here just literally 10 or 15 minutes after the events that took place this morning, that is, the first crash. . . . [He] told me that shortly after 9 o’clock he had roughly 10 alarms, roughly 200 men in the building trying to effect rescues of some of those civilians who were in there, and that basically he received word of a possibility of a secondary device — that is, another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another explosion which took place. And then an hour after the first hit here, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here. So obviously, according to his theory, he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. One of the secondary devices he thinks, that took place after the initial impact, he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building. So that’s what we have been told by Albert Turi, who is the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department. He told me that just moments ago. . . . But the bottom line is that, according to the Chief of Safety of the New York City Fire Department, he says that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions. And he said that there were literally hundreds if not thousands of people in those two towers when the explosions took place.”

3:02 PM, Narrative Reporting

Dawson asks a police officer: “How would you describe your efforts to organize to the rescue effort now, given that we saw a sequence of events this morning? A sequence of crashes, then explosions, and then the collapses.”

7. Anne Thompson, NBC

12:43 PM, Eyewitness Reporting

“And I was walking on Broadway at Fulton, and suddenly we heard an explosion. It was the first tower coming down. And down Broadway you could just see this wall of debris flying at us. . . . It looked like a war zone. Debris, dust ankle deep, cars on fire, cars turned askew in the explosion. . . . Then at about 10:30 it looked like everything was all clear. I started to walk out. I walked down Broadway towards Canal. And we heard the second explosion. . . . At that point a fireman came into the building and said we all had to stay in one place. He then told us all to get out of the building because they felt if there was a third explosion that this building would be in danger.”

8. Aaron Brown, CNN

Note: Although Aaron Brown is a news anchor, we include him among the explosion reporters because he was positioned outside and witnessed the events directly, and his direct perception played a major role in his evolving interpretation of the event.

9:59 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“Wow! Jamie. Jamie, I need you to stop for a second. There has just been a huge explosion. We can see a billowing smoke rising. And I can’t — I’ll tell you that I can’t see that second tower. But there was a cascade of sparks and fire and now this…it looks almost like a mushroom cloud, explosion, this huge, billowing smoke in the second tower. This was the second of the two towers hit. And I, you know, I cannot see behind that smoke obviously, as you can’t either. The first tower in front has not changed. And we see this extraordinarily (sic) and frightening scene behind us of this second tower now just encased in smoke. What is behind it…I cannot tell you. But just look at that. That is about as frightening a scene as you will ever see.”

10:02 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“Again, there has been a second explosion here in Manhattan at the Trade Center. We are getting reports that a part of the tower, the second tower, the one a bit further to the south of us, has collapsed. We are checking on that. . . . What we can tell you is that just in the last several minutes here — two or three minutes — a second or third, I guess, technically, extraordinary event has happened here in lower Manhattan. You can see this extraordinary plume of smoke that is, or was at least, the second tower of the World Trade Center.”

9. Rose Arce, CNN

10:29 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“I’m about a block away. And there were several people that were hanging out the windows right below where the plane crashed, when suddenly you saw the top of the building start to shake, and people began leaping from the windows in the north side of the building. You saw two people at first plummet and then a third one, and then the entire top of the building just blew up, and splinters of debris are falling on the street.”

10:50 AM, Narrative Reporting

“It looks like a large chunk of that debris has hit a building very close by, about two blocks away next to an elementary school, causing another explosion. . . . So as people are coming up the street running from the scene of this new explosion you can see them slipping on the ash and literally having to drag each other up the street.”

Note: We include Rose Arce’s statement at 10:50 AM as narrative reporting because it indicates that she initially perceived and then continued to interpret the destruction of the Twin Towers as explosions.

12:26 PM, Narrative Reporting

“As you walk through the ash you can see debris from inside the World Trade Center itself, a very eerie scene, pieces of paper from people’s desks, office supplies many, many blocks from the site the actual explosion where they now are fearing that there may be yet another explosion because of this potential gas leak.”

10:43 PM, Eyewitness Reporting

“People were rushing to the windows. They were taking clothes — one thing looked like a blanket that they were waving — and then suddenly there was another, an explosion, and you saw folks start to jump out the front window of the building and plunge. I saw at least six people do this. Folks were pushing each other. Some people were screaming for help and then just falling out.”

10. Patty Sabga, CNN

10:57 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“About an hour ago I was on the corner of Broadway and Park Place — that’s about a thousand yards from the World Trade Center — when the first tower collapsed. It was a massive explosion. At the time the police were trying desperately to evacuate people from the area. When that explosion occurred it was like a scene out of a horror film.”

10:59 AM, Narrative Reporting

“The scene was like a ghost town in the Financial District. Very eerie. You saw people being wheeled on gurneys away from the site of the explosion. . . . Now, at the time I was back on the corner again of Broadway and Park Place. At that time, the police started running toward us telling everybody to move who was left on the street. I looked up and that’s when I heard the — [coughs] pardon me — that’s when I heard the explosion. That’s when the second tower came down.”

11. Alan Dodds Frank, CNN

11:07 AM, Narrative Reporting

“Aaron, just two or three minutes ago there was yet another collapse or explosion. . . . But at a quarter to 11:00 there was another collapse or explosion following the 10:30 collapse of the second Tower. And a firefighter who rushed by us estimated that 50 stories went down. The street filled with smoke. It was like a forest fire roaring down a canyon.”

Note: We include Alan Dodds Frank’s statement at 11:07 AM as narrative reporting because it indicates that he interpreted the destruction of the Twin Towers as possibly being an explosion-based event.

12. David Lee Miller, Fox News

10:01 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“Jon, the scene is horrific. One of the two towers literally collapsed. I was making my way to the foot of the World Trade Center. Suddenly, while talking to an officer who was questioning me about my press credentials, we heard a very loud blast, an explosion. We looked up, and the building literally began to collapse before us. . . . And I am now standing in a black cloud of smoke. . . . I’m on a pay phone on the street right now and I literally cannot see more than quarter-block away. That’s how thick the smoke is. I’m on Murray Street and West Broadway for those who know Lower Manhattan. Not clear now is why this explosion took place. Was it because of the planes that, uh, two planes, dual attacks this morning, or was there some other attack which is — there has been talk of here on the street.”

10:32 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“Jon, just seconds ago there was a huge explosion, and it appears right now the second World Trade tower has just collapsed.”

13. Rick Leventhal, Fox News

10:05 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

He asks a police officer: “Do you know if it was an explosion or if it was a building collapse?”

Then he asks: “How many people would you say were on the ground when the building exploded or collapsed?”

10:06 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“When the building did collapse — or whatever it was that happened — it was a huge explosion, a huge rumbling cloud of smoke and fire came a cross Church Street and started billowing this way. . . The FBI is here, as you can see. They had roped this area off. They were taking photographs and securing this area just prior to that huge explosion that we all heard and felt.”

10:12 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“And we were standing here when there was some sort of collapse or explosion and everyone started running in this direction.”

14. Ashleigh Banfield, MSNBC

9:59 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

Chris Jansing (news anchor): “It does appear that there has been a third explosion in the area of the World Trade Center. There was first one plane that hit one of the Twin Towers. A second plane, each about one hour ago. And now a third explosion. Ashleigh Banfield is in Manhattan. Ashleigh, did you see or hear anything just moments ago?” 

Ashleigh Banfield: “God. Oh my god, Chris, this is incredible. I’m looking right at it.”

Jansing: “What are you seeing, Ashleigh?”

Banfield: “Well, I saw the explosion, for one.”

Jansing: “Could you feel it?”

Banfield: “I can smell it. Everyone around screamed at the time it happened. It’s just unbelievable. I can’t see that it’s another building. It looks almost in the same position as the second bomb, or second explosion. It’s unbelievable.”

Jansing: “What’s the scene around you? What are people doing?

Banfield: “Most people, as I said earlier, are absolutely aghast.

Jansing: “Are they running?”

Banfield: “No one’s running. No, I’m not close enough at this point to be seeing that. I wouldn’t be showered with debris from my position here. I’m too far north of it. But I have a bird’s eye view of what’s happening. The route that I’m on is the emergency route right now, so all of the emergency vehicles are streaming past us. But as I was looking up I saw the entire explosion. It looked exactly like the first two. Unbelievable. And everyone who watched it around me screamed. It was just a chorus of “oh my gods” from everyone standing around. I’m walking, so what I’m hearing are a lot of people whose cars are parked, who’ve got their radios tuned to local news stations and trying to catch up on just exactly what’s happening. But now I’m seeing people running. But I really don’t think they’re running from the area. We’re too far away to be in the direct line of any debris. But we certainly had the most perfect vantage point for that explosion. It was unbelievable. And the smoke now is so thick. It’s just incredible.”

10:54 AM, Narrative Reporting

“Well, we just heard another explosion go off a couple minutes ago, Chris, and saw a bunch more people sort of running this way. A woman on her bike was screaming as it went off. And there was a New York City officer who was plain-clothed walking by with a radio. I tried to stop him to ask what happened. And all he said was ‘car bomb, car bomb.’ And then I couldn’t ask him for any information. He said, ‘I have no time for this.’ We haven’t seen anything since. But the cloud of smoke is still extremely thick right around the direct vicinity of the World Trade Center. I am now about, I’d say — what do you say, we’re about five or 10 blocks north of it now? About five or 10 blocks north of it, and just unbelievably the sun has come out. There’s blue sky above us. We started with sheer blackness. When that cloud of debris and of smoke came out, when the explosion happened, we couldn’t see anything, we couldn’t breathe. We tried to make our way a few blocks up and we’ve made contact with some other NBC crew here.”

10:55 AM, Narrative Reporting

“It’s terrifying here, Chris. When that last bomb — or when that last collapse happened, and the cloud came out, it was like something out of Hollywood. . . . It’s really eerie seeing the people who got caught in that blast, because everyone looks like a ghost.”

1:35 PM, Narrative Reporting

“What did you see in the epicenter when you came out of that explosion?”

1:36 PM, Narrative Reporting

“At the very start of the day when this happened, we were right in the epicenter where the explosion was. Right now I’m covered in the debris and the dust from the explosion itself. I was hit with a cloud of debris and smoke.”

1:37 PM, Narrative Reporting

“That is 7 World Trade Center. Apparently on the south side, that’s the side that’s not facing us, about halfway way up it’s still burning pretty badly, because it was rocked with a lot of the explosion from the force of the Twin World Trade Centers, when they came down. A large concern is what’s going to happen with that brown building now, which is why we keep getting moved further and further north. You can see people down on the street moving towards us. Even media who originally were allowed to have more sort of free rein to report this story, we’re being pushed out as well as, because there was some concern that there might be additional explosions, possibly other bombs.”

15. Rick Sanchez, MSNBC

10:52 AM, Narrative Reporting

“You have to understand that when this first happened, they certainly didn’t imagine that there would be second or tertiary explosions. So they parked some of their vehicles in those areas. And many of those vehicles — people in those vehicles have lost their lives.”

11:26 AM, Narrative Reporting

“Well, we’ve been told, as matter of fact moments ago, to try and get out of this area, because they’re moving everyone out. And the fear is, of course, that there are gas leaks, natural gas in this area that either fed into or out of the buildings that have exploded. And now those lines are open and may rupture.”

12:07 PM, Source-based Reporting

“Well, I’m in that area, if you’re familiar with this area of where West Broadway and Hudson come together, right at Chambers. That would put us about a block and a half away from the site of where the explosion was. That area has just been evacuated because police have found what they describe as a suspicious device. They fear that it might be something that could lead to another explosion. Obviously, there’s a real sense of caution here on the part of police. I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris. And they told me that they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the World Trade Center — aside from the ones that may have been caused by the impact of the plane with the building — may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some type of explosive device in it. So their fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area. And that’s why they’re being so cautious in this vicinity right now.”

12:09 PM, Narrative Reporting

“This is why it’s so difficult for them in this area where we are. Imagine, they came here originally to deal with a crisis. They set up some command centers, and they had many of their chiefs and many of their supervisors in the area of the building. The second and third explosions literally have wreaked havoc on those field forces and those command centers. So they’ve had to back up. And now they’re trying to see how they can approach it again.”

16. John Bussey, CNBC Contributor, Wall Street Journal Reporter

11:52 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“I was getting ready to talk with Haines [inaudible], and the fire was raging in both buildings. I looked up at the south building, the second World Trade Center to be hit, and explosions were coming down the building. It looked as if charges had been set on each floor and they were in succession going off. Now, this is probably not what was happening. It just looked that way to me. The building just blew out floor by floor, and it probably had something to do with the structural damage that was done by the planes hitting it. When I saw the floor-by-floor explosions happening, I dove out of the office where I was because the windows looked directly over the World Trade Center. We are in the World Financial Center directly across West Street from the two Trade Centers. By the time I came up from under a desk where I sought shelter, the entire floor, the entire room where I was completely dense with cement and smoke. You could not see.”

Note: Here Bussey has started to interpret the phenomena he witnessed as the building simply collapsing. However, it is clear from this and from his other accounts of the event (Source 1Source 2) that his initial interpretation was that explosives were destroying the building.

11:55 AM, Narrative Reporting

“We were so close to the building that you could feel it hitting your shoulder as it rained down. But we were on the safe side of the building — much, much safer than where the firefighters were on the other side of the building, exposed directly to the explosion.”

17. Ron Insana, CNBC

12:41 PM, Eyewitness Reporting

“Well, I was heading down after we had learned of it, about 9:00 or 8:55 this morning, I had called in to see if we should go down and aid the coverage. And I was on my way down. We got fairly close to the building, and I ran into a camera man from MSNBC and we were trying to get across town past the World Trade Center to the Westside Highway, which is on the lower southwest corner of Manhattan to hook up with our colleagues from CNBC. And as we were going across one of the restricted zones, the building started to explode, I guess the only way I could describe it. It was hard to tell if it was an actual explosion, but the building began to come down. . . . We heard, we heard — I wouldn’t call it an explosion. We did notice that the building began to blow at the top, and that material began to come down. . . . And as we turned to run, material just began to fall. And like that scene in Independence Day, where wind was just whipping down the street in the wake of an explosion, that’s exactly what we experienced. It went down the street, curved around corners, and blew with a fair degree of intensity, again, Tyler, until the sky was completely black.”

1:08 PM, Eyewitness Reporting (appearing on NBC)

“As we were moving towards the building we saw the top begin to blow out in a plume of smoke. And we heard the noise associated with an implosion.”

18. Bob Pisani, CNBC

2:42 PM, Narrative Reporting

“And the real panic, I think in my mind, occurred, Maria, I was outside when you were when the second explosion occurred, because so many people had been attracted to what was going on. The explosion threw debris on top of a lot of people. That was when the real panic began.”

19. N.J. Burkett, WABC

9:59 AM (unknown air time), Eyewitness Reporting

“And you can see the two towers — a huge explosion now raining debris on all of us! We better get out of the way!”

20. Michelle Charlesworth, WABC

10:10 AM, Eyewitness and Narrative Reporting

“I can only hope that people got out of the area on the sidewalks below the South Tower before it came tumbling down. But it literally exploded and came down as though it had been hit. Plumes of smoke moving out into the harbor…To give you some idea of where I am, I’m approximately 20, 30 blocks from where this latest explosion just happened.”

21. Nina Pineda, WABC

10:17 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

Bill Ritter: “Nina, I want you to describe one more time what it felt like when that tower collapsed. What did it feel like to you on the ground there?”

Nina Pineda: “We were standing probably about three blocks away advancing toward the scene to try and gather some photos and some videotape. And it felt like the entire ground shook. It felt like what it feels like to be in an earthquake. The ground was shaking followed by plumes and plumes of overwhelming smoke and flying debris, ash, and pieces of the building. As the ground was shaking…”

Lori Stokes: “Was there sound?”

Pineda: “There was a tremendous booming sound, and then it just felt like a rumbling. But it didn’t sound like an explosion. It sounded like a loud rumbling. And then the next thing we saw were the streets — the way the streets looked were just overcome by smoke, just plumes and plumes of smoke like a bomb had gone off, coming up the street as people were racing to get in front of these clouds of smoke, and not doing too good of a job.”

10:18 AM, Narrative Reporting

“And what were doing when the explosion happened was shooting pieces of the plane. There are pieces of the plane on Church Street.”

10:19 AM, Narrative Reporting

“Seconds before the explosion happened there was another kind of a renewed interest in really getting people away. Because, of course, out of curiosity everyone’s trying to get pictures of the World Trade Center on fire. They started screaming, ‘Get back! Get back! There’s another explosion happening.’ I guess they were being warned on their radios that the top was going to come down, because it was burning for the better part of half an hour. And they screamed to get people back. They started screaming, ‘Leave Manhattan if possible. Everybody leave Manhattan if possible.’”

Unknown time, Narrative Reporting

Pineda: “The ladies that are with me were in the World Trade Center in the first building and escaped through the lobby where they report that they believe there was a bomb in the lobby.”

Michelle Scott (witness): “And even the turnstile was burnt and it was sticking. And they just told us to run.”

Igarlow Sweezer (witness): “And we were coming out, we passed the lobby, there was no lobby. So I believe the bomb hit the lobby first, and a couple of seconds and the first plane hit.”

Unknown time, Narrative Reporting

“If you can see behind me, this a moment ago you could see all the way through. But from that last explosion that Jeff Rossen was telling us about, it is now again dark. It was strangely and eerily calm here in the Financial District because everything’s been evacuated.”

Unknown time, Narrative Reporting

“The only thing left in the street are people’s shoes as they ran out of their shoes to escape the fire bombs and the explosions.”

22. Cheryl Fiandaca, WABC

10:38 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“I was right next to the South Tower. I was about two blocks away. It was just a small explosion, and then rocks and debris and everything started pouring down.”

Unknown time shortly after 10:38 AM, Eyewitness and Narrative Reporting

“Right, we were about two blocks away when the second explosion hit. And all we heard was just a small explosion. And then we saw a roar of an explosion, and all kinds smoke coming billowing out, debris falling down, people running, the firefighters and police screaming at everyone to run as the debris was coming down and hitting people.”

23. Joe Torres, WABC

Unknown Air Time, Eyewitness Reporting

“Ten o’clock this morning, photographer Glenn Mayrose and I, along with FBI agents, police officers, fire officials, we all thought for sure a bomb was set to explode underneath our feet outside 7 World Trade Center. We took off running for our lives north on Church Street. We had no idea the top of one of the Twin Towers had just exploded. . . . As others looked back in shock and horror, we started another interview with a Port Authority engineer who worked at World Trade Center and spoke to us about the strength and integrity of the skyscrapers. Then, suddenly, the second tower erupted right before our eyes.”

24. Carol Marin, CBS Reporter appearing on WCBS

10:59 AM, Narrative Reporting

Carol Marin: “After the second tower went down, I was trying to make my way to a CBS crew or to try to help CBS crews if I could. And then, I don’t know what it was, John. But another explosion, a rolling blast of fire, a rolling column of fire towards us. My respect for fire and police already knew no bounds given the danger, it now exceeds what I thought it could, because a firefighter threw me into the wall of a building, covered me with his body as the flames approached us. And another police officer in New York named Brendan Duke, wherever he is, got me through smoke that neither one of us could see more than about a foot ahead of us. There are still people in there. Excuse me, I’ve breathed a fair amount of soot. The personnel, the police and the fire working in there are doing so against really dangerous odds. And they still don’t know if there’s something left to explode, John.”

John Slattery: “Where were you at the time?

Marin: “I was — not being a New Yorker, you’ll have to help me here. I came around Stuyvesant High School, and that street at the north end. And I came up and asked if anyone had seen a CBS crew. And I was directed by a firefighter who said, ‘Walk down the middle of the road, because you don’t know what’s going to come down.’ At which point, we heard a rumble like I’ve never heard before, and a firefighter ran towards me. We ran as fast as we could. I lost my shoes. I fell down. He picked me up and slammed me into a wall and covered me with him until we could make it more to safety.” 

John Slattery: “Was this from the first rolling blast or the second?”

Carol Marin: “John, I looked at my watch. It was about 10:44, is what my watch said. So it was after the second tower, I think the second tower explosion.”

Note: The focus of Marin’s account is one of several widely corroborated explosions that occurred between 10:38 AM and 11:30 AM after both towers had come down. However, Marin’s reporting qualifies her as an explosion reporter in regard to the Twin Towers because she references “the second tower explosion,” and it is clear she interprets the towers’ destruction as an explosion-based event.

25. John Slattery, WCBS

11:44 AM, Narrative Reporting

“There were many tears. There was an awful lot of anguish. And then, with subsequent explosions, and when a portion of World Trade 1 hit the ground, there was an enormous burst, a cloud of smoke and debris that started moving north.”

26. Marcella Palmer, WCBS

Unknown time, Eyewitness Reporting

Marcella Palmer: “We heard another explosion. And I’m assuming that’s the one that came from the lower level, since there were two.”

Unidentified Anchor: “Right, because it was like 18 minutes apart?”

Palmer: “Well, this is — no, the first explosion, then there was a second explosion in the same building. There were two explosions.”

27. Vince DeMentri, WCBS

Unknown time, Narrative Reporting

“Very difficult to breathe, but look around. This must have been Ground Zero where this thing blew up. Car after car after car, buses, completely burned and obliterated straight down to the steel.”

28. Walter Perez, WNBC

9:59 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“We’re not sure exactly what happened, but it was another explosion on the far side of one of the buildings from where we’re standing. The reverberation — and another explosion on the right-hand side! Another building has gone up on the right-hand side of the road. People are now running down the street. We’re not sure if that was another explosion or if that was advanced debris.”

10:00 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“At this point, as you can tell, there’s absolute pandemonium in this area because of what has just happened. Exactly what, I can’t confirm. But on the far side of the building, there seemed to be another explosion and also on the right-hand side, there was also another explosion. We’re not sure if that was extra reverberation from what happened at the World Trade Center or if that was an added explosion. At this point, there’s a lot of smoke, massive plumes of smoke falling from the building across the street. People that were running down the street or walking are now running away. We don’t have any information as far as what the most recent reverberations were. But from two blocks away you could feel what happened.”

10:27 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“As you can imagine, it was a pretty frenzied scene here. Just a few moments ago, I’d say about 20 minutes ago, we’re not sure exactly what it was, we have not confirmed it. But something either exploded or fell off the side of the one building that was attacked and caused a massive plume of smoke.”

29. Kristen Shaughnessy, NY1

9:59 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

“Oh, it is just coming down, Pat. It is just coming down. It’s exploding. It is billowing. Pat, the debris is flying. I’m going to run.”

10:42 AM, Narrative Reporting

“Good morning again, Pat. I am actually just across from City Hall, I don’t have to tell you. With that second explosion the dust did not seem as bad.”

10:43 AM, Narrative Reporting

“It’s unbelievable because you hear these explosions. In fact, I just heard another one — I don’t know if it was like an aftereffect or what not — just while you were on the phone talking about the school closings. It wasn’t as big, obviously, as the other ones. But it still sent a tremor all the way over here, and I’m obviously on the other side of the World Trade Center, on the other side of the city. And it’s just unbelievable.”

10:45 AM, Narrative Reporting

Kristen Shaughnessy: “I’m hearing another explosion, just so you know. I’m hearing another rumble. It’s not as bad as the other ones were. But, I don’t know if you have pictures.”

Sharon Dizenhuz: “We have a picture and we don’t see anything beyond the enormous billows of smoke that have been there. But no additional bursts from our vantage point.”

Shaughnessy: “Okay, didn’t mean to interrupt, Sharon. What you can feel when these tremors come is that it literally comes up under your feet. That’s what it feels like. That’s the best way I know to describe it.”

30. Andrew Siff, NY1

10:12 AM, Eyewitness Reporting

Sharon Dizenhuz: “Andrew, when you saw this happen, what did it look like to you at close range? Because to us it seemed almost like dominoes, you know, going floor by floor by floor.”

Andrew Siff: “It was a little difficult to tell at first to figure out what was happening. We heard an explosion. We heard either an explosion or the sound of something making impact. We were in the middle. I was with news assistant Jason Post, and we were walking down West Street. And when we heard the sound we whipped around and saw just a buckling of the tower. And it just looked like it collapsed within itself. You could just see the top of the tower collapse. We can’t tell what happened to the bottom half of the tower from here.”

31. John Schiumo, NY1

10:18 AM, Narrative Reporting

“There’s another explosion as we speak!”

Note: Although the phenomenon Schiumo describes occurs between the destruction of the two towers, which happened to the South Tower at 9:59 AM and the North Tower 10:28 AM, we classify him as an explosion reporter because he refers to it as “another explosion” — thus suggesting he understood the destruction of the South Tower to be an explosion-based event — and because the explosion he describes may have come from the North Tower and been related to its eventual destruction 11 minutes later.

32. Andrew Kirtzman, NY1

11:11 AM, Narrative Reporting

“Mayor Giuliani appeared about 45 minutes ago on Chambers Street near Church Street. We began walking up Church Street when the second building proceeded to collapse, and a huge plume of smoke flew up into the air, went up into the air, and the mayor and his party started running up 6th Avenue. A plainclothes detective threw his arm around Mayor Giuliani as we took off, not knowing what the repercussions of a second explosion would be.”

11:12 AM, Narrative Reporting

“And for about 10 minutes they tried to break into the fire station as the mayor stood by and the police commissioner stood by waiting to set up an operations center. That’s — kind of wanted to paint a picture of kind of the seat-of-the-pants operation that they’ve been forced to construct here because of the explosion downtown.”

33. Jack Kelley, USA Today

Unknown time apparently around 5:30 PM, Source-based Reporting

Jack Kelley: “Apparently, what appears to have happened is that at the same time two planes hit the building, that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the building which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down.”

USA Today Anchor: “Now that’s the first time we’re hearing that. So two planes and explosives that were in the building, is that correct?”

Kelley: “That is the working theory at this point. That is still unconfirmed, but that is what the FBI is going on at this point.”

34. First Unidentified Reporter at Giuliani and Pataki Press Conference

2:43 PM, Narrative Reporting

“Do you know anything about the cause of the explosions that brought down the two buildings yet? Was it caused by the planes or by something else? Those second explosions.”

35. Marcia Kramer, WCBS, at Giuliani and Pataki Press Conference

2:44 PM, Narrative Reporting

“Mr. Mayor, could you tell us, do you expect any further attacks on New York? Is there anything to indicate that there could be more bombs, more planes out there? I know originally there was a report that eight planes had been hijacked. Four have only been accounted for. What about the remaining four? And is there any possibility that there could be bombs on the ground planted by someone?”

Note: Kramer was in the studio when the destruction of the Twin Towers occurred, but later went into the field to conduct reporting, including attending the afternoon press conference with Mayor Giuliani and Governor Pataki. While watching the destruction of the first tower from the studio in the morning, Kramer hypothesized that it was caused by an explosion or bomb, which explains the rationale for her questions during the press conference.

At 10:02 AM, three minutes after the destruction of the first tower, she stated, “Right now police have to determine if whether that explosion was caused from the initial impact of the plane or whether it was something that was exploded on the ground. Generally speaking, for a building to collapse in on itself like that, it would seem to indicate — obviously, this is just early speculation — but it would seem to indicate that there could have been an explosion, a bomb planted on the ground, that would make the building collapse within itself.”

Then, at 10:14 AM, she stated, “Well, we have a number of updates. Number one: CNN is now reporting that there was a third explosion at the World Trade Center, probably an explosion from the ground that caused World Trade Center 1 to collapse on top of itself. Again, there was a third explosion. It is unclear what caused it, whether it was a bomb or whether the first plane that crashed into the tower had somehow been booby-trapped with a bomb that was timed to explode later after the crash had occurred. But CNN is reporting that there was a third explosion that caused World Trade Center 1 to collapse within itself and then collapse on other surrounding buildings.”

This is a brief glimpse at how CNN and one of the anchors at WCBS interpreted the destruction of the Twin Towers. In our next article, we will delve much deeper into how the anchors at each of networks interpreted destruction of the Twin Towers.

36. Second Unidentified Reporter at Giuliani and Pataki Press Conference

2:54 PM, Narrative Reporting

“So the only National Guard we’ll see will be in Lower Manhattan in the bomb site area, they won’t be patrolling the rest of Manhattan?”


Appendix B: Statements by Four Non-Explosion Reporters

1. Don Dahler, ABC

10:00 AM

Peter Jennings: “[Don] Dahler from ABC’s Good Morning America is down in the general vicinity. [Don], can you tell us what has just happened?”

Don Dahler: “Yes, Peter. It’s Don Dahler down here. I’m four blocks north of the World Trade Center. The second building that was hit by the plane has just completely collapsed. The entire building has just collapsed as if a demolition team set off — when you see the old demolitions of these old buildings. It folded down on itself and it is not there anymore.”

Jennings: “Thanks very much, [Don].”

Dahler: “It has completely collapsed.”

Jennings: “The whole side has collapsed?”

Dahler: “The whole building has collapsed!”

Jennings: “The whole building has collapsed?”

Dahler: “The building has collapsed.”

Jennings: “That’s the southern tower you’re talking about?”

Dahler: “Exactly. The second building that we witnessed the airplane enter has been — the top half had been fully involved in flame. It just collapsed. There is panic on the streets. Thousands of people running up Church Street, which is what I’m looking out on, trying to get away. But the entire — at least as far as I can see, the top half of the building — at least half of it, I can’t see below that — half of it just started with a gigantic rumble, folded in on itself, and collapsed in a huge plume of smoke and dust.”

10:02 AM

Jennings: “The southern tower, 10:00 eastern time this morning, just collapsing on itself. This is a place where thousands of people work. We have no idea what caused this. If you wish to bring — anybody who’s ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you’re going to do this you have to get at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down.”

Dahler: “Peter?”

Jennings: “Yes, Dan.”

Dahler: “What appeared to happen from my vantage point, the top part of the building was totally involved in fire, and there appeared to be no effort possible to put that fire out. It looked like the top part of the building was so weakened by the fire the weight of it collapsed the rest of the building. That’s what appeared to happen. I did not see anything happening at the base of the building. It all appeared to start at the top and then just collapse the rest of the building by the sheer weight of it. There was no explosion or anything at the base part of it. But I did see that the top part of it started to collapse. The walls started to bulge out, glass things coming out. And then it collapsed down on itself. And then it appeared to just fold down from there, from the very top.”

Jennings: “Thanks, Don, very much.”

2. Drew Millhon, ABC

11:09 AM

“I was at the corner of Varick and Canal, which is about 10 to 12 blocks north of the World Trade Center, where roughly 300 to 400 people were gathered watching the flames and the smoke from both the World Trade Centers going through the air. And I began to cross the street and I heard a collective scream from this group of people. And I looked up and the first World Trade Center that collapsed was falling down. The shriek lasted for quite a long time. And then many of these people fell into tears, just crying and sobbing. ‘I don’t know where my mother is. I don’t know where my friends are.’ That sort of thing was heard all around this crowd.”

3. Bob Bazell, NBC

10:08 AM

“I was actually standing and saw that collapse. And everybody here [at St. Vincent’s hospital on West 12th Street] just gasped. Even the medical workers and the ambulance attendants when they saw that, people who are used to tragedy, grabbed each other and hugged each other. And some started to cry.”

4. John Zito, MSNBC

10:36 AM

Chris Jansing: “Were you able to feel the collapse of that second tower?”

John Zito: “The second tower, no. But the first tower that went down, I was very close, I’d say about five blocks away. And CNBC’s Ron Insana and I were trying to hook up with a truck or find any NBC contact down there. And we were very close to when that tower came down. And debris came showering down, and Ron and I both ran for cover. I managed to get inside an alcove of buildings. And all the scaffolding around collapse in front of me and broke the window next to me. And I climbed inside that and stayed in there for about 10 minutes. I couldn’t get out of there. It was pitch black outside.”


Appendix C: Borderline Cases

This appendix contains three borderline cases that we determined could not be clearly classified as explosion or non-explosion reporters.

1. Minah Kathuria, NBC

Kathuria is a borderline case because it is unclear whether she suspects the destruction of the South Tower to have been a demolition or whether she is merely likening the destruction to a demolition in its appearance. In the case of Don Dahler, who is included in Appendix B as a non-explosion reporter, it is clear that he ultimately interpreted the destruction as a fire-induced collapse even though he likened the destruction to a demolition in its appearance.

10:11 AM

“We’re on the corner of Duane and West Broadway walking down towards the Twin Towers, and it just collapsed. It looked like a — it looked sort of like the building just demolished. Smoke, clouds — I mean, clouds of smoke everywhere.”

2. Brian Palmer, CNN

Palmer is a borderline case because he is asked by CNN’s Aaron Brown if it sounded like an explosion or just the sound of the collapse itself, and he does not favor one interpretation over the other, and he describes the sound as a “boom,” which was not strong enough in our view to classify him as an explosion reporter. We view Palmer as being distinct from Alan Dodds Frank, who, although he did not commit to one interpretation over the other, readily asserted the possibility that the destruction of the towers was an explosion-based event.

10:41 AM

Aaron Brown: “Brian, did it sound like there was an explosion before the second collapse, or was the noise the collapse itself?”

Brian Palmer: “Well, from our distance, I was not able to distinguish between an explosion and the collapse. We were several hundred yards away. But we clearly saw the building come down. I heard your report of a fourth explosion: I can’t confirm that. But we heard some ‘boom’ and then the building fold in on itself.”

3. Maria Bartiromo, CNBC

Bartiromo is a borderline case because she repeatedly uses the word “explosion” and her description of what she witnessed corroborates the explosion hypothesis, but although she uses the word “explosion” to describe what she witnessed, she attributes it to the sound of the buildings collapsing.

10:14 AM

Maria Bartiromo: “Now I’m standing on the floor of the exchange. But I just came back from outside and I am covered with soot. Basically, I was outside when that third explosion occurred. . . . The whole area turned pitch black when that third explosion happened. . . . I don’t know if you can see my jacket and my shoes, but I’m completely covered in white smoke from that third explosion.”

Unidentified Anchor: “Maria, do you know what that explosion was?”

Bartiromo: “That was about 10 — I’d say 15 minutes ago.”

Unidentified Anchor: “But do you know what caused it?”

Bartiromo: “No, I don’t.”

Mark Haines: “At the moment, Maria — and for the people with you — at the moment there are eyewitnesses who feel that another plane, a third plane . . .”

Bartiromo: “Yes, some people are saying that . . .”

Haines: “. . . hit the base of the South Tower.”

Bartiromo: “I was under the impression that it was just the actual collapse of the building. But some people are speculating that. I didn’t want to say that because . . . .”

Haines: “We had — at the moment it happened — we had MSNBC’s feed up, and we could hear people shouting ‘a third plane, a third plane.’ And then there was an explosion — ‘another plane, another plane,’ and there was an explosion.”

Bartiromo: “That’s right. And I was outside during that explosion.”

10:49 AM

“The second explosion I witnessed was about 10:00 AM, and that was, in retrospect, the collapse of that tower. And again, debris came at us. The whole area turned pitch black. All we could see was smoke. We couldn’t even breathe practically. We were closing our eyes. I actually went under the building across the New York Stock Exchange.”

12:24 PM

“I walked outside a little while ago. There are dust, white dust, this thick on the floor. Debris and smoke just settling after the explosions. I mentioned to you earlier in the coverage that I myself witnessed two of the explosions. The first one that I witnessed was when the second plane went into the second tower. And truly it was out of a movie. This plane going right in, putting a hole into the second tower. The second thing that I myself witnessed, the further collapse of one of the towers. And this huge bang down on Wall Street. Everyone ran for their lives.”

1:01 PM

“I was outside a little while ago. It almost looks like there’s snow on the ground. There are piles, and really just a thick sheet of dust — white, white dust — from the explosion. . . . Then about 15 minutes later I went back outside, thinking that it was safe again. And lo and behold I witnessed the third explosion, which of course was the sound of the tower collapsing. And at that time, when I heard the tower collapsing — again, it was a huge, huge thump and explosion noise. You’re looking at the scene right now. And that’s what we were all watching. The building collapsed. We all ran for our lives. Metal and papers and debris were flying at us in the face.”

1:37 PM

“Then, 10 minutes or 15 minutes later, I walked out there again thinking that, you know, we had seen the worst. And, of course, then there was a third explosion. And that third explosion was the sound of the second tower collapsing.”

2:42 PM

Bob and I took a walk together outside and we came back really, really covered with it earlier, when I witnessed that third explosion, the third explosion being the collapse of one of the towers.”

Originally published by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Ted Walter is the director of strategy and development for AE911Truth. He is the author of AE911Truth’s 2015 publication Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7 and its 2016 publication World Trade Center Physics: Why Constant Acceleration Disproves Progressive Collapse and co-author of AE911Truth’s 2017 preliminary assessment of the Plasco Building collapse in Tehran. He holds a Master of Public Policy degree from the University of California, Berkeley.
Graeme MacQueen received his Ph.D. in Buddhist Studies from Harvard University and taught in the Religious Studies Department of McMaster University for 30 years. While at McMaster he became founding Director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster, after which he helped developed the B.A. program in Peace Studies and oversaw the development of peace-building projects in Sri Lanka, Gaza, Croatia and Afghanistan. Other works in MacQueen’s body of historical 9/11 research include: 118 Witnesses: The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin TowersWaiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral HistoriesDid the Earth Shake Before the South Tower Hit the Ground?Eyewitness Evidence of the Twin Towers’ Explosive Destruction; and Foreknowledge of Building 7’s Collapse.

can you spare $1.00 a month to support independent media

Unlike the Guardian we are NOT funded by Bill & Melinda Gates, or any other NGO or government. So a few coins in our jar to help us keep going are always appreciated.

Our Bitcoin JTR code is: 1JR1whUa3G24wXpDyqMKpieckMGGW2u2VX

4.5 13 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
126 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Oct 2, 2020 2:06 AM

I really hope by the 20th anniversary of 9/11 next year that the nonsense theory that 9/11 was a false flag where 3,000 people were killed and 6,000 people were injured is not still playing above the line.

What complete and utter nonsense! As if the US government would even attempt to callously and cold-bloodedly let the people in the buildings die when they needed to involve emergency response and scripted reporters (the key truth of the analysis is that the reporters mostly if not all are scripted) and all the perps had to do was prevent most people entering the buildings in the first place through various drills and whatever other ruses and then doing a complete evacuation while faking the jumpers and hiring actors to play loved ones, witnesses and injured. As the planes were obviously faked we know automatically that those 265 deaths were faked … so if they managed to fake those why not the others?

I believed the nonsense for four years of study myself only waking up two years ago to the pivotal truth of staged death and injury and what an uphill battle it’s proved to be to get the truth out.

Ironically:
Truthers are disadvantaged over those who’ve never studied 9/11 in learning the real truth.

Truthers have been indoctrinated with the propaganda of the evil of the perps with the PNAC document, auditors targeted in the buildings, the toxic dust, Israel, Israel, Israel, the fake “loved ones” and colleagues, and on and on.

Those who haven’t studied 9/11 are not indoctrinated with that propaganda so when you explain 9/11 to them as being a Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise pushed out as real, comprising numerous smaller exercises and drills meaning death and injury were staged they’re not resistant to the idea in the same way truthers are. They say:

“Yes, it’s the only thing that makes sense.”

Are you a truther indoctrinated with the propaganda that the US government killed all those people or can you detach yourself from it to recognise that no, it wasn’t a “false flag” per se, it was, in reality, a glorified “exercise”. If you are so indoctrinated as a truther then unfortunately you are a retarder of the bringing the truth of 9/11 to the world, you are, in fact, the opposite of what you intend to be, you are a hider of truth rather than a bringer of truth.

https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/11.html

Carnyx
Carnyx
Sep 23, 2020 11:06 AM

Why not ask Sivan Kurzberg, Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Yaron Shimuel and Omar Marmari?

Kev
Kev
Sep 20, 2020 9:19 PM

A collapsing building the size of those towers would sound like an explosion to anyone.
Do you have the BBC News guest predicting the collapse BEFORE either of them went down? His exact words were”There’s a good chance this tower might collapse with such a fire” This was live, during the attack which I watched with my own eyes. I believe he was an expert in bulding design or something akin. Get over yourselves with the daft conspiracy theories and go after the facist threat currently facing the world.

Antonym
Antonym
Sep 20, 2020 3:15 AM

So the tallest buildings in the 2001 world went down noisily: that alone is very suspicious….
/sarc

GuyW
GuyW
Sep 17, 2020 3:43 PM

A few things to consider when deciding whether this was blown up or fell down. When a building is demolished, it is blown at the bottom, with simultaneous charges on internal structures to weaken them and bring it down. The building collapse with floor 1, followed by 2 collapsing onto it, then 3, 4 etc. The Twin Towers, collapsed at the point of impact and then fell onto the rest of the tower, so collapsed floor 66, then 65, 64, 63 etc. The design was flawed with no internal pillars for maximum floor space, and very long metal joists which expanded and pushed the walls out. This caused the collapse where the fires were. Tower 7 did fall onto it’s base, but the base had caught fire and had burned for 8 hours. Why blow up a building with explosives 8 hours after it caught alight? And why didn’t the fire set of the explosives? I think the collapse of the towers was natural and caused by the planes. Not convinced that the US security services weren’t also involved or aware. And the Pentagon is a mystery!

paul
paul
Sep 17, 2020 4:24 PM
Reply to  GuyW

Why didn’t the fire set off the explosives?
You can set fire to plastic explosive without setting it off.
Though I have never tried this myself.

GuyW
GuyW
Sep 17, 2020 10:52 PM
Reply to  paul

And the waiting 8 hours to blow it up?

GuyW
GuyW
Sep 17, 2020 10:55 PM

Watch the video. You can’t see the actual speed of the building being crushed because of the debris of the upper floors coming past it. Plus the design of the Twin Towers was unusual. There were no structural pillars to blow. There was the central lift towers and the outer walls.

Guy
Guy
Sep 16, 2020 2:15 PM

With the limited knowledge of explosives / dynamite that I have ,when I heard Larry Silverstein use the word “pull it” on the day of 9/11 ,regarding building 7 , I knew he had made a gaff and I also knew that it was all a conspiracy of the many who were involved in it .Who were the probable conspiracy players ,I would soon come find out .
Thank you so much for this article and helping out Architects and Engineers for 9/11.
The perps MUST be exposed for all to see .IMHO , this disclosure will redress many wrongs that have transpired since this event .Wars etc.The number of innocent people that have died because of this real conspiracy is relatively countless .Never was a Trump supporter much as I think most politicians in the US are corrupt or compromised but here is a link from Robert Steele who sums it all up nicely in 23 minutes .
https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/911-truth-coming-out-fast-former-spy-ran-cia-false-flag-operation-and-details-all/#comment-24977

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Sep 18, 2020 2:36 PM
Reply to  Guy

No gaffe, Guy. There’s no way in the world that Larry would have given instructions to “pull it”, that would have been all pre-planned and if anyone was giving instructions it certainly wouldn’t have been him, it would be someone involved in the demolition operation.

“Pull it” was a giveaway clue just as newscaster Brian Williams’ question to FDNY EMS lieutenant, David Restuccio, “Can you confirm it was No 7 that just went in?” was also a giveaway clue.

It’s called “hidden in plain sight”, “the revelation of the method” and no doubt other terms are applied.

They TELL us loud and clear with gratuitous anomalies all over the place: the popping up alive of the terrorists, the indications that Hani Hanjour who allegedly executed the impossibly expert manoeuvre into the Pentagon was a lousy pilot, the pre-announcement of WTC-7’s collapse and, in fact, WTC-7’s collapse itself. There was no reason at all to showcase its collapse. WTCs 3-6 came down after 9/11 with no fanfare of any kind. Who has any clue how they came down? WTC-7’s collapse was part of the perps’ strategy in focusing everyone on the demolitions and away from the faked plane crashes (faked plane crashes mean 265 people didn’t die in planes which might lead truthers to question the other 2,735 deaths).

9/11 truth has moved on … at least in some quarters. Not so much on OffG whose readers, editorial and writers have generally fossilised at the “false flag” notion. 9/11 wasn’t a “false flag” or “inside job” per se. What it was in reality was, in effect, a Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise comprising many smaller exercises and drills pushed out as a real event – like so many other psyops – Sandy Hook, Manchester bombing, Bataclan, Nice truck, Berlin truck, Stockholm truck, and so many others too numerous to mention. The only physical realities on 9/11 were damage to and destruction of buildings, the planes were faked and death and injury were staged.

It involved media including a number of journalists, response agency staff, corporations, banks, US government and intelligence as well government and intelligence of quite a number of other countries including my own, Australia. Little Johnny Howard was given front row seats for the big event, just happening so very coincidentally to be in Washington on the fateful day.

I have a website on psyops including 9/11 which gives a more comprehensive understanding of psyops and a sense of how 9/11 is one event on a long and broad continuum.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Sep 18, 2020 2:37 PM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Forgot to mention, “went in” is a term used in controlled demolition due to the collapsing buildings falling in on themselves.

Moneycircus
Moneycircus
Sep 16, 2020 10:56 AM

If you haven’t come across the work of NBC veteran Daniel Hopsicker, you’re in for a treat.

Mohammed Atta and The Venice Flying Circus
https://www.bitchute.com/video/SeHXwVOXbuH0/

Hopsicker tracks down the club owners and strippers who hung loose with the hijackers in Venice Florida. The retirement town, where young Arabs stuck out like a sore thumb, is home to flying schools and mysteries airlines, like Southern Cross Aviation, that used to be based in Mena, Arkansas, home of the guns-for-cocaine Iran Contra trade.

Dr NG Maroudas
Dr NG Maroudas
Sep 16, 2020 5:34 PM
Reply to  Moneycircus

@MC: “Arkansas, home of the guns-for-cocaine Iran Contra trade”

and ruled by Lord and Lady MacBeth of the bloodstained hand and semen stained dress, with a trail of corpses stretching from Arkansaw to Syria.

“Fit to govern? No, not fit to live!” — MacBeth, Act 4

Roberto
Roberto
Sep 16, 2020 7:00 PM
Reply to  Moneycircus

James Bamford, in his book ‘The Shadow Factory’ has some interesting references to phone calls being intercepted from the various terrorists in different locations. Because the phone calls were not from a domestic to a foreign location they were legally not allowed to listen beyond a certain time frame. The Shadow Factory (2008) was a pre-Snowden study of domestic surveillance in America.

Jill
Jill
Sep 15, 2020 5:15 PM

Clearly, it was a weather balloon (with a picture of Dick Cheney on it) which caused all 3 towers to fall!

Seriously–To all those involved in pulling together this (and other) extensive research, I thank you. I believe you will prevail in court. Even if that does not come to pass, the truth will prevail in the knowledge of the many.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Sep 16, 2020 2:44 AM
Reply to  Jill

The thing is, Jill, what is the truth? I believe, using 100% evidence-based thinking that I’ve worked out the essential truths of 9/11 but most people below the line, the OffG editors and certainly everyone above the line disagree. So I ask you, what do you believe are the essential truths of 9/11? I’ll present a few hypotheses and you can let me know if it’s one of those or whether you support a different hypothesis

1. My hypothesis – Full-Scale Exercise pushed out as a real event
9/11 was a Trauma-based Mind Control Psychological Operation in the form of a massive Full-Scale Exercise comprising many smaller exercises and drills where the only major physical reality was damage to and destruction of buildings. The planes were faked and death and injury were staged. A massive propaganda campaign was targeted to truthers to maintain their belief in real death and injury because armed with one important truth, controlled demolition, but one very important lie, 3,000 dead and 6,000 injured, the truthers cannot get anywhere because the general population will find the idea of the US government callously and cold-bloodedly killing all those people too taboo. This campaign includes fake loved ones, fake jumpers, implied evil of the government in their PNAC document and targeting of people they wanted rid of in the buildings, etc. Additionally, they push the truth out to us with scripted journalists actually alluding to controlled demolition, the second plane having its nose cone pop out the other side of the South tower, the pre-announcement of WTC-7’s collapse and, in fact, the showcasing of WTC-7’s collapse (they didn’t need to bring that building down on the day any more than they had to bring down WTCs 3-6) – what they wanted was everyone’s attention on the destruction of buildings rather than on the faked planes (faked planes means the faked deaths of 265 alleged passengers) and they want to keep us right away from fakery of death.
This hypothesis is supported on various pages starting here:
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/11.html

2. Massive State crime where buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition, four plane crashed, 3,000 people were killed and 6,000 were injured. The “9/11 families” are genuine and sufficient in number to represent all the loved ones of the 3,000 people killed and the reporters were all speaking candidly when they alluded to controlled demolition on the day.

3. Massive State crime where buildings were destroyed, planes were faked, 2;750 people were killed (3,000 – 265 alleged passengers) and 6,000 were injured (or insert whatever numbers of dead and injured you might think if you think a different number.) The “9/11 families” are genuine and sufficient in number to represent all the loved ones of the 3,000 people killed and the reporters were all speaking candidly when they alluded to controlled demolition on the day.

4. Other hypothesis

Jill
Jill
Sep 16, 2020 5:15 PM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Petra,

I agree with option 4.

There is a great deal of amazing research (such as this article) about every facet of what happened on 9/11. I have been working through it. I can tell you the official story is BS.

At this point I would say I have not resolved certain competing explanations in my mind. I am hoping that this crime against humanity gets into a courts system somewhere (it might in the UK) and we get discovery.

Many nations were involved and of course Dick and friends loom large as culprits from the US. This was mass murder.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Sep 17, 2020 2:57 PM
Reply to  Jill

This was mass murder.

The perps most certainly want us to think it was and despite giving us many clues that, in fact, they didn’t commit mass murder (at least not on 9/11) they are very successful in this endeavour. After all they’ve been controlling our minds for millennia without our ever catching on.

Jill
Jill
Sep 17, 2020 3:35 PM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Petra,

Do you think that no one died when the towers collapsed? Do you think that no one has died from exposures to many toxic substances and deaths on that day? Real evidence shows those deaths occurred.

Of course I think it is a moral imperative to remember Gitmo and other torture facilities around the world where it is documented that people died. I must include US soldiers and Iraqi soldiers and civilians, as those in Afghanistan , Pakistan and all places which our govt. used/is using as killing fields.

This cannot be separated from 9/11 as these murders were all intended to flow from the events that day.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Sep 18, 2020 2:48 PM
Reply to  Jill

It’s extremely counterintuitive, Jill, but the bad guys actually make out they’re being bad when they’re not. It’s a form of intimidation and also a way to mislead us from the truth.

I think the “toxic dust” is propaganda to put them in a worse light. 9/11 was essentially a Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise pushed out as real and I believe that the same precautions would have been used as in normal exercises. If there was toxic dust it would be no more than in normal demolitions. The 1 billion dollar bill for asbestos removal they showed us is propaganda to make us think they used the alleged terrorist attack to pull down asbestos-ridden buildings. They wouldn’t have done that as far too many people in on the operation would have been affected.

I have put my case for staged death and injury below. If you care to read it and if you care to put forward a single item of evidence that favours real death and injury over staged I’m happy to discuss further.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html

9/11 truth has moved on, Jill, at least in some quarters.

iba
iba
Sep 15, 2020 4:59 PM

Does anyone here still have a doubt?

The people who did this are still around. The media that allowed the official story to go unchallenged is still around. We live in that same world.

Jim2468
Jim2468
Sep 15, 2020 4:59 PM

Not trying to be a party pooper here but ideas are what I do. So, just a thought, is it possible for the “explosion” sounds to be the sounds made by the air popping as each floor collapsed from above? Wouldn’t that be about the same as clapping your hands except a whole lot more powerful and very loud? After all, these “journalists” are not explosion sound experts, are they? I’m not saying they were not explosions. Maybe they were. I’m just asking for an opinion from an expert or maybe someone on here that has experience in this area can give a qualified opinion.

Peter Jennings
Peter Jennings
Sep 15, 2020 7:09 PM
Reply to  Jim2468

There were definitely explosions. The first big ones were under the building and were clearly heard even if some do not believe their own senses. The firemen in the buildings definitely stated explosions. They should know the difference. They managed to get this across even with their malfunctioning radios. It seems eveything was thought of.

Maintenance personnel at the lower levels suffered 2nd and first degree burns from a big explosion from one of the elevator shafts. Rescue workers later found that the ground under the towers had liquefied before resolidifying.

If the building security under Jeb Bush hadn’t pulled the sniffer dogs from the lobby they might have stood a chance detecting the lethal equipment being smuggled into the building. As the dogs were only used in the lobby area, once the equipment was on the upper floors, it was then well away from any prying noses.

The explosions were needed to cut vital stays and divide the steel beams into bite size pieces ready to be shipped to China in record time, even though the area and everything in it was a crime scene.

Jim2468
Jim2468
Sep 15, 2020 7:18 PM
Reply to  Peter Jennings

Pete, my question wasn’t about explosions. It was about air claps during the collapse and could they be mistaken for explosions by these reporters. Your answer was not at all responsive to my question. If you have an agenda please take it elsewhere.

Watt
Watt
Sep 15, 2020 11:06 PM
Reply to  Peter Jennings

Same happened in London. Tube carriages were shipped to New York. Photos were leaked at that juncture.

Paul Vonharnish
Paul Vonharnish
Sep 15, 2020 4:15 PM

Finding aerial or video footage of World Trade Center buildings 4 and 6 has become nearly impossible. There were once several critiques of buildings four and six’s “neglected” reporting, but now next to impossible to find. Gee… I wonder why?

Excerpted from: Making Israel Nervous: Exposing the REAL Perps Behind 9/11
Tuesday, September 27, 2016

What about the mysterious 9/11 explosion at WTC 6 that sent building fragments over 500 feet into the air?”

Before the smoke had cleared from around the stricken South Tower, a mysterious explosion shot 550 feet into the air above the U.S. Customs House at 6 World Trade Center. This unexplained blast at the Customs House has never been investigated or reported in the mainstream media.”

Please review the video footage and linked page for more information:

http://careandwashingofthebrain.blogspot.com/2016/09/making-israel-nervous-exposing-real.html

sharon marlowe
sharon marlowe
Sep 15, 2020 5:19 PM

Since I saw you comment about building 6 in an earlier thread, Paul, I had to find out what you were speaking about. I was terribly ignorant about buildings 6 and 4. i use a variety of search engines when trying to find out about stuff like government crimes, so I used six five of them to find articles about those buildings. It proved to be greatly revelatory. I just want to thank you for inspiring me to read about them. Oh! and my single upvote should be read by you as a million upvotes:)

Moneycircus
Moneycircus
Sep 15, 2020 5:38 PM
Reply to  sharon marlowe

Dogpile claims to be a search engine of search engines… Though I’ve been negligent in checking which it includes.
WTC six I’d heard about but not four. Thanks Paul.

sharon marlowe
sharon marlowe
Sep 15, 2020 5:45 PM
Reply to  Moneycircus

I haven’t used Dogpile yet, Moneycircus. Thank you:)

Paul Vonharnish
Paul Vonharnish
Sep 16, 2020 1:05 AM
Reply to  Moneycircus

Hello Moneycircus: Thank you for posting your greatly informed comments. Building 4 contained a number of financial institutions, and a vault (once) loaded with gold for arbitrage leveraged exchange. The vault fell a number of floors into the basement garage, and was later accessed. Little or no gold was recovered even though the vault was totally intact…

Paul Vonharnish
Paul Vonharnish
Sep 16, 2020 12:58 AM
Reply to  sharon marlowe

Thank you so much sharon marlowe. I had done quite a bit of research on the 9/11/2001 event shortly after it occurred. YouTube was once replete with civilian videos of the situation at street levels. Many of these videos were taken down in short order, as the Patriot Act and talk of war became more and more strident.

One short video of building 4’s windows blown out (before the first collapse) was taken by private citizen as he made his way toward the main complex. Unfortunately, he died as a result of falling debris from the north tower collapse. Many other films were sent to FBI and other agencies, and were never returned or seen again… The attempts at cover up have been “heroic”.

sharon marlowe
sharon marlowe
Sep 16, 2020 1:10 AM

Thank you again, Paul:)

Eyes Open
Eyes Open
Sep 15, 2020 4:05 PM

Molten aluminum (fuselage) combined with water (sprinkler systems) causes explosions.

Mucho
Mucho
Sep 15, 2020 12:43 PM

Here is a great piece of 911 evidence. Former Israeli PM Ehud Barak delivers the offical 911 narrative for the first time just a few hours after the attacks to the propaganda peddling deceivers at the BBC

Peter Jennings
Peter Jennings
Sep 15, 2020 11:48 AM

The very last days of honest reporting. Just days after everyone was gagged and had to follow the script already written for them years ago in preparation. Some reporters are believed to have been murdered because they wouldn’t shut up about the demolition or wouldn’t follow orders from higher up.

Like Hitler standing on the piles of rubble demanding a hate filled retaliation, so it was with the bushwacker who couldn’t help himself at his Reichstag. Clinton did the same at his Reichstag, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma.

This is the price of acquiescence or believing that all gov’ts are there to protect the public.

There were other things which happened on that day. Vaults under the building were blown and ransacked for bullion and paper. The building security staff were told to get lost at the point of a rifle.
Building 7 also housed all the meat from investigations into the tech and energy scandals.
Puff, and their gone, along with the trillions of dollars unaccounted for and announced just prior to the treason committed on Sept 11th.

Mr Y
Mr Y
Sep 15, 2020 11:40 AM

RIgging the World Trade Center for controlled demolition isn’t a one man job. What are the odds that after 19 years not one of those involved has come forward or at least had a slip of the tongue?

Judith
Judith
Sep 15, 2020 12:18 PM
Reply to  Mr Y

I’d say very good.

Dr NG Maroudas
Dr NG Maroudas
Sep 15, 2020 12:56 PM
Reply to  Mr Y

Mr.Y, it’s not a bet it’s a cert: “after 19 years not one of those involved has come forward” to our knowledge.

Rhys Jaggar
Rhys Jaggar
Sep 15, 2020 1:54 PM
Reply to  Mr Y

There will be a very small number who knew the full details. Many of those involved may only have known small parts, not necessarily fully realising their significance.

My short-list for total knowledge:

  1. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld
  2. Larry Silverstein
  3. Benjamin Netanyahu

I am sure there are a few more, but I do not know personally who they might be.

FEMA will have known that there were war game simulations taking place, but nothing more.

BT Alex Brown knew about the put option scam. They may not have known any more.

Dubya will have been briefed after it happened, but he clearly was not cognisant beforehand. Daddy Bush will have put the fear of god into his son to keep him onside. No contest there.

Someone in China must have been ready to step in at very short notice to take away all the Ground Zero rubble so that no forensics on a crime scene were possible. A deal may have been in place long before, just the details will have been much more generic – rapid clearing of a disaster site.

Peter Jennings
Peter Jennings
Sep 15, 2020 7:16 PM
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar

They gave the bushwhacker a book to read. It didn’t help.

paul
paul
Sep 15, 2020 8:22 PM
Reply to  Rhys Jaggar

Very shrewd assessment, R.
The USS Liberty, the Lavon Affair, Operation Magic Carpet and other operations provided the necessary template. All they had to do was draw on past experience.
Only a very small number of conspirators would have had full knowledge of the operation, probably less than a dozen.
Lower level Mossad goons or dual nationals like Chertoff/ Silverstein aren’t going to come forward after the event.
Either because they fully approved of what had happened, and benefited from it personally. Or because they were implicated and would themselves face murder charges if the truth ever came out. And potentially face exemplary punishment as mass murderers. Though they would certainly be aware they would be silenced well beforehand, like Maxwell Senior, Epstein or Vanunu if they rocked the boat.

Some people find this difficult to accept, but historical precedents indicate otherwise.
The Bletchley Park/ Enigma operation involved thousands of people over many years. One of them was a relative of mine. He just did his intelligence job and never had a clue what he was working on. Some of these people were all kinds of bohemian oddballs and eccentrics. But the truth never came out. At the end of the war, all the records and equipment were destroyed. Everybody involved was told to keep their mouths shut and dispersed. Officialdom wanted to keep it secret in case they needed to duplicate the operation against the Soviet Union. 30 years later, in the 1970s, officialdom decided this was no longer necessary and the details of the operation could be revealed. Till then, nobody knew anything about it.

The same applies to the Manhattan Project, the atom bomb. This involved hundreds of thousands of people and the expenditure of billions of dollars in 1940s prices. New towns and power stations had to be built. Entirely new industrial processes, like completely automated factories, had to be developed. The silver reserves of the US Treasury were raided for the project. But nobody knew anything about it till there was a big bang one morning over a place called Hiroshima. Even Truman had never heard anything till he became president.

Much else has never been revealed, and probably never will. The murders of the two Kennedys and MLK are obvious examples. There are many, many others.

Roberto
Roberto
Sep 16, 2020 6:48 PM
Reply to  paul

Stalin, his spies, and Soviet technicians knew about the Manhattan project, and were engaged in parallel development.
Pavel Sudoplatov claimed to have been in charge of infiltrating the project as head of Department S, (supposedly refuted by an FBI investigation decades later – but Elizabeth Bentley code name ‘GOOD GIRL’ went to the FBI in 1945 and revealed the extent of the operation). No other claims of Sudoplatov in his book ‘Special Tasks) have been refuted, and the Manhattan Project security had been compromised, by some program.
At the Potsdam conference, Truman slyly suggested to Stalin that a new terrifying weapon had been developed by the US. Stalin never asked any questions, he just said something like: ‘Good luck with that’. He knew more about it than Truman did – he had been following the developments in real time.

MaryLS
MaryLS
Sep 15, 2020 3:12 PM
Reply to  Mr Y

I suspect fear keeps them quiet. Also, they may not be Americans.

Rhys Jaggar
Rhys Jaggar
Sep 15, 2020 10:40 AM

So what is required is the following set of bald questions for the ‘explosion reporting reporters’:

  1. What, if anything, caused you to change your personal opinion on explosives vs fire-based destruction of the WTC towers?
  2. Whose directives caused you to change that opinion on air?
  3. Was your employment endangered if you resisted that change of opinion?

If the answer to 2 was ‘my editor/producer’, if the answer to 3 was ‘you betcha’, and if the answer to 1 was ‘nothing’, then what you have is cast iron proof of how the media was controlled to cover up what truly happened on 9/11.

Those questions need asking and those pleading the Fifth should be asked whether the dead of 9/11 had a get-out-of-jail free card.

That should humiliate them publicly….

Michael Souris
Michael Souris
Sep 15, 2020 9:38 AM

Slightly off topic, but we were in Melbourne Australia on 9/11 and followed the TV reports like everyone else. At some point there was a report about another plane crash in Washington and a short film clip of a passenger plane flying into the Pentagon was shown. It was in colour and shot from almost ground level but not very convincing and looked more like a video game clip. We only saw it once and were beginning to think we had imagined it when a radio show host Tony Biggs on local 3RRR station asked if anyone else had seen the strange footage. We called in to say we had. I’ve always wondered about this film clip but never saw it again. I wonder if anyone else did?

Moneycircus
Moneycircus
Sep 15, 2020 5:47 PM
Reply to  Michael Souris

Australia also got a different feed of the Moon landings and heard stuff no one else did. Sorry but my memory fails at exactly what it was… A Coke bottle in the moon?

You know what! I’m not that forgetful. Here it is: https://m.facebook.com/trustnobody59/posts/1445933378803291

https://www.industry.gov.au/news-media/australian-space-agency-news/australia-and-the-first-moon-landing

ZenPriest
ZenPriest
Sep 15, 2020 8:17 AM

We know it was blown up. So look into who did it.

Moneycircus
Moneycircus
Sep 15, 2020 8:25 AM
Reply to  ZenPriest

Rep Liz Cheney needs to be held to account. Otherwise what’ll happen is the perpetrators will die and their offspring will be granted a fresh start, with a clean slate, while they pursue the same demonic agenda.

No! Renounce the blood money or take responsibility for the sins of the fathers…

Moneycircus
Moneycircus
Sep 15, 2020 6:46 AM

This is a great bit of research, well worth reading: the direct testimony of reporters before they were “got at” and fed the official narrative.

It reminds me of that JFK documentary that has no commentary — it just shows the first reports of what journalists and witnesses saw, and anchors said, on the first day. It doesn’t need a voiceover.

Can anyone help me with the title?

The documentary supports the thesis that there is more honesty and truth in the first reports — even if the information is incomplete, conflicting and sometimes wrong and no-one knows what’s going on. That’s it: no-one knows what’s going on. They haven’t been TOLD yet.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Sep 15, 2020 7:40 AM
Reply to  Moneycircus

MC, are you unfamiliar with the fact that they always give us the truth underneath the propaganda? It’s called “revelation of the method”.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/they-tell-us-clearly.html

The reporters were all scripted. 9/11 was, in reality, a massive Full-Scale Exercise comprising many smaller exercises and drills, some conducted on the day but I’d say many pre-recorded where the only physical reality was damage to and destruction of buildings – the planes were faked as were death and injury. 9/11 was a movie and so much film would have been inserted. It involved elements of government, intelligence, military, media, corporations and banks, etc, etc. Many people in the know and and many not but you’d think that many who were not would somehow suspect but people are so very, very good at waving away evidence. You are yourself, you see, because you refuse to answer my question about the credibility of story about the miracle survivors of the North tower collapse in NY Mag. You simply refuse to answer it because a genuine answer would conflict with your belief in the deaths of those poor people in the buildings.

Nothing but nothing astounds me more on my journey to truth than the fact that people, regardless of which side of the conspiracy fence they’re on, will simply wave away evidence. What you really need to be a genuine truther is to care about whether every single piece of evidence favours your hypothesis and I can honestly say that I haven’t encountered a single person who does except for myself – I’d say pioneering researcher, Gerard Holmgren was of a similar ilk – but he, unfortunately, died four years before I even woke up to 9/11. The reason I am scrupulous about ensuring every piece of evidence supports my hypothesis is simply that I’m not invested in my belief (I really don’t know why others are so invested in theirs – I mean really what is a belief worth?) so it is not problematic for me to turn on a dime when I’m confronted with evidence that contradicts whatever my current belief is.

So the reporters TELL us that it was controlled demolition. Do you know any non-truthers who’d pay the slightest attention to reporters spouting CD here there and everywhere? No and that is why the perps are safe having the reporters SCRIPTED to say controlled demolition.

The most telling piece of dialogue I think that shows scripting (I mean they TELL us it’s scripted loud and clear) is that between Brian Williams, MSNBC News Anchor and David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant about WTC-7 after its collapse:
https://youtu.be/i5b719rVpds?t=224

“Can you confirm it was No 7 that just went in?” [“Went in” is a term used in controlled demolition that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves.]

“Yes, sir.”

“And you guys knew this was comin’ all day.”

“We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down.”

Dr NG Maroudas
Dr NG Maroudas
Sep 15, 2020 11:12 AM

Admin1, Good Luck. It would be great if you could persuade Petra Liverani nee’ Flaxgirl to briefly state her main message: “They” (powerful conspirators) are rubbing our noses in it, arrogantly proclaiming “we create our own reality”. Somehow she cannot bear to think these power maniacs conspire to kill actual people.

Do not be hard on her. Neither can most of the population of the Freedom Loving Democratic West bring themselves to believe that Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld / Rice / Powell and Wolfoschitz conspired to kill 3,000 U$ citizens in NYC on 911 2001 as a prelude to their New American Century of War.

Dr NG Maroudas
Dr NG Maroudas
Sep 15, 2020 12:14 PM
Reply to  Dr NG Maroudas

PS conspired to kill 3,000 U$ citizens in NYC on 911 2001 as “an event”

Too horrible to face. Such gruesome beings belong only to the distant past, like Nero and Caligula.

Watt
Watt
Sep 15, 2020 9:27 PM
Reply to  Dr NG Maroudas

By the time the asbestosis really begins to kick in, the death toll may rise a bit! A few crude CGIs, well place charges, and bingo! Asbestos removal on the cheap, plus benefits.

Paul Vonharnish
Paul Vonharnish
Sep 15, 2020 3:19 PM

Thank you Admin1. Petra Liverani’s comments have no place in a rational discussion of 9/11/2001 facts and events. The postings distract readers time, and waste useful space in the public comments section.

Millions of Iraqi, Libyan, Afghan, Syrian, and Yemeni civilians have been starved, murdered, brutalized, and treated as worthless collateral by persons and organizations that perpetrated the events of 9/11. That is the bottom line.

Petra Liverani and other such butchers of reliable information, have no soul and obviously no conscience. They are a disgrace to the human species.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Sep 17, 2020 3:38 PM

Admin, I’d really like to reach a little more agreement between us on things. I don’t know if that’s possible but I’ll give it a go.

You say that my claim that they TELL us is only my opinion, not fact. Well, I certainly didn’t work it out myself. It is a phenomenon far too counterintuitive for me to work out. It was told to me by staged event analyst, Ole Dammegard, however, despite its counterintuitiveness I accepted it immediately as fact because it explained a number of things that had puzzled me such as the alleged father of a child who’d allegedly been murdered by a crazed gunman the day before walking to the microphone with a big smile on his face to give a 17-minute press conference whose sole purpose seemed to be to reveal the details of a fund-raising site set up for his recently-deceased daughter, the nose cone of the second plane popping out the other side of the South tower, the pre-announcement of WTC-7’s collapse, the popping up alive of the terrorists and a number of other things which seemed such obvious and unnecessary giveaways, such gratuitous clues.

So Admin, you see no giveaway clues in 9/11 or the Skripal case or COVID-19 or other events? No giveaway clues are apparent to you? I’m afraid if that is the case then we are simply very different kinds of analysts.

You claim the whole elaborate scheme you describe was built on the ‘fact’ that the 3,000 deaths would be the major reason people refused to believe in an inside job. But when asked for evidence of this ‘fact’ (on which your entire thesis rests) you admit you don’t have any and you’re just guessing.

My two major claims are:
— 9/11 was, in effect, a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise comprising smaller exercises and drills pushed out as a real event, where the only physical realities were damage to and destruction of buildings, planes were faked as were death and injury.
— A massive propaganda strategy has been targeted to the truthers to maintain their belief in death and injury

These two claims are 100% evidence-based, they are not guesses, they are not opinions.

My explanation for the propaganda strategy to maintain truthers’ belief in death and injury are, as you say, a guess. However, it honestly didn’t occur to me that there could be any other explanation. If you have another one I’m very happy to consider it. I have no particular evidence for this explanation, it just seems obvious somehow. But I do not claim it with authority, it is indeed a guess. As I said in my last comment to you I’m open to other hypotheses. You haven’t suggested one though. Do you have one, assuming you agree with my first two claims of course. If you don’t agree with my first two claims, why don’t you?

What I’d really, really like from you Admin is when I ask you a question that you answer it. When you don’t answer my question what happens is that we go around in circles whereas if you answer my question then things can be established so we don’t keep going around in circles. This is the third time I ask you this question. Please answer it.

I believe that the language used in the dialogue below and the general content show scripting and is an example of – what you claim is my opinion -the perps telling us what they’re up to.

“Went in” is a term used in controlled demolition that that comes from the fact that the buildings fall in on themselves. Why on earth would a newscaster use that term in normal speech and about a building that as far as he knew had simply collapsed for reasons unknown at that time? Also, why would anyone be thinking that the building would be coming down?

If your perception differs from mine in that this dialogue indicates clearly that the two men knew that the building had come down by controlled demolition and also let us know that they know by using very specific words and saying particular things then our views are simply too different. We cannot really discuss anything because what appears so very obvious to me does not appear that way to you. We view things too differently to have meaningful discussion. Would you agree?

Dialogue between Brian Williams, MSNBC News Anchor and David Restuccio, FDNY EMS Lieutenant about WTC-7 after its collapse:
https://youtu.be/i5b719rVpds?t=224

“Can you confirm it was No 7 that just went in?”

“Yes, sir.”

“And you guys knew this was comin’ all day.”

“We had heard reports that the building was unstable and that eventually it would either come down on its own or it would be taken down.”

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Sep 22, 2020 7:37 AM

So Admin, for the THIRD time you haven’t answered my straightforward question. When someone doesn’t answer my questions in an argument I see no reason to engage with them. To me a person who doesn’t answer questions that are posed to them has zero interest in the truth because if you’re interested in the truth you answer questions posed to you that challenge your beliefs.

In future if you attack me for my “screeds” or in any other way if I feel disinclined to respond I’ll simply refer you to this comment. I don’t see the point in wasting my breath arguing with someone who doesn’t argue in what I believe is a reasonable manner. We’ve done enough rounds that it’s obvious that neither of us will convince the other of what we believe and there is zero point arguing.

ttshasta
ttshasta
Sep 15, 2020 4:06 AM

I Thank everyone here for all your work, site, and reader’s comments.
So much information I have witnessed 6, 8, or12 years ago, I can no longer find.
How so I wish I had archived such data.
I often copy text, and save it to email drafts; also I download many jpeg photos to my files.
My desktop has 900 gigs of free space, I do wish I were better able to archive video files .
Can anyone here offer solutions for archiving vdeo data to Mac or Android platforms free of charge and fee of login data harvesting?

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Sep 15, 2020 6:09 AM
Reply to  ttshasta

I just discovered an interesting website from the early 2000s in case you’re interested ttshasta.

I quote three paragraphs from one of its pages published on 09/09/04 below:
http://www.angieon911.com/id24.html

I’d never considered that, yes, of course, they could have planted WMDs if they’d wanted to make their case compelling but they didn’t. As I’ve come to realise how much they fake, including the Collateral Murder video which, counterintuitively, seems so incriminating and was “leaked” to Wikileaks (https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/wikileaks-controlled-opposition.html), I rather suspected that Abu Ghraib might have been faked too although I’ve never looked at it since it allegedly happened. I think the writer, “Angie”, is correct in wondering why war prisoner abuse is pushed at us by the MSM. For all I know Angie is controlled opposition herself just doing her job of pushing out the truth – they always give us the truth under the propaganda. I emailed her but have received no reply and I wonder why she’s kept her website up for so long without any further work on it. But regardless – genuine person or controlled opposition giving us the truth – what Angie says is spot on.

—————————————————————————

There’s also been another possible motive for the 9-11 attacks that I’ve speculated about since the beginning. Have you ever wondered why the 9-11 official story was so implausible and so sloppily put together? (you know, the simultaneous hijacking of four different planes by people armed with mere boxcutters, the suicide notes found in luggage that inadvertently didn’t make it on the planes, Arabic flight manuals left in cars in the airport, and a million other things they did which seem like obvious plants, or things they didn’t do or create which would have squelched many of the 9-11 skeptics early on.) It’s as if they want us to see through the whole thing. Could the perpetrators, in fact, want a 911 Truth Movement to flourish? And if so, why?

Perhaps the perpetrators are deliberately setting up the U.S. to be the bad guy to the rest of the world, perhaps to give the rest of the world the notion that they’d have to consolidate to fight the sole superpower, getting us that much closer to a one world government that so many global elite long for. Perhaps the ‘transparent 9-11 inside job/ mass murder deliberately painted on others for a non-ending war pretext’ is just a part of that, part of the intentional plotting to have the U.S. be seen as the real rogue nation that others must get together to fight against.

Everywhere you look, it seems, the U.S. goes out of its way, against its interests, to put itself in the worst possible light. The U.S. could easily have, for example, planted weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to make itself look better, but it didn’t. And the U.S. could perform identical horrible actions around the world without the seemingly intentionally abrasive and arrogant foreign policy pronouncements which alienate our allies’ populations. And why has the U.S. media and even governmental officials taking a liking recently to reporting on war prisoner abuse when they’ve never paid such close attention to it so close in time to it before? It’s hard to believe that the sloppiness of 9-11, and these other items, are just due to the incompetence of those in charge, and so I speculate.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Sep 15, 2020 6:38 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Actually I shouldn’t say “spot on”. She, like so very, very many others gets the critical truth wrong although it’s understandable so early on and, of course, if she is, in reality, controlled opposition and is deliberately getting it wrong.

On 9/11 death and injury were staged.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html

Moneycircus
Moneycircus
Sep 15, 2020 6:32 AM
Reply to  ttshasta

Beware download software that asks you to install a program — they’re not all bad but if you download the wrong one you’ll spend ages cleaning your system. This one is just an Add On or Extension in your browser, that puts a download button on the YouTube page. You can disable it at any time.

In Mozilla Firefox get the Add On Easy Youtube Video Downloader Express https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/easy-youtube-video-download/

To save web pages try PDF Mage. It’s much better than saving the whole page with html files… all you need is a nice, simple PDF. And it’s easy to email, too.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/pdf-mage/?src=search

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Sep 15, 2020 7:04 AM
Reply to  Moneycircus

There you are again, MC.

Still haven’t responded to my question about the credibility of the miracle survivor stories? How can you justify that lack of intellectual rigour?
https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/2003/n_9189/

Are you emotionally invested in the story of all those poor people in the buildings being callously and cold-bloodedly killed by their own government? Is that why you haven’t responded?

If so, unfortunately, you’ll never make a good analyst of how power controls us because you need to be ruthlessly emotionally detached. Do you seriously think that they don’t control both our HEARTS and our MINDS? It’s not just mind control, MC, it’s our HEARTS too. Perhaps my lack of one is unfortunate in other areas of my life but when it comes to analysing psyops it is essential.

I did feel bad for those people but I wasn’t emotionally invested in their deaths. It was not emotional investment in their deaths that delayed my recognition that they were faked, it was the propaganda that had me under its spell – the alleged auditors who were targeted in the buildings, the “outsiders” – the Israelis bringing down the buildings because it was too dastardly a deed for US citizens themselves, Bob McIlvaine and his son Bobby, April Gallop, the Jersey widows, Richard Grove getting “stuck in traffic” while his colleagues perished (LOL), and a number of other things. It was the propaganda not emotional investment in the deaths of those people … or the suffering of the loved ones – I just believed their story and felt a certain sympathy, I wasn’t emotionally invested.

Of my close acquaintance there are about 5 people who recognise 9/11 as an “inside job”. When I woke up to staged death and injury only one of those 5 people had strong resistance to this truth and he is an emotional person. When his dog was very sick and the likelihood of its survival was virtually nil he paid $3,000 that he could ill-afford for 24 more hours of life because he was too upset to make the decision to have his dog euthanised there and then. That wouldn’t be me. I understand that and in some ways I wish I was more that kind of person but I’m not. I’m a detached analytical type person. This friend was utterly outraged at the idea that the poor people in the buildings weren’t in fact there at all and weren’t killed. He was outraged. Would not brook argument about it. He was completely emotionally invested in their deaths.

Moneycircus
Moneycircus
Sep 15, 2020 7:30 AM
Reply to  Petra Liverani

Petra, it doesn’t make an difference to my view of 9/11 whether there were real people or crash test dummies: the Towers came down in pre-planned explosions.

The reason is this: the Pentagon’s plan, Operation Northwoods, from the 1960s, already explains in detail how they would “merge” two planes on the radar, swap a airliner for a drone, land the airliner at an airbase, secretly remove the passengers who aren’t real because they’re military disguised as passengers… and explode the drone in a “spectacular”, claiming that it was an airliner and blaming it on a third country.

It’s all there in the Pentagon’s own words. “crisis actors”, soldiers acting as people, people who don’t exist, empty planes, “interruptible autopilot” and remote controlled planes, drones loaded with explosives… real targets and casualties, fake targets and fake casualties.

We even know that on 9/11 the civilian planes flew out of their way to pass over military airbases, exactly in accordance with Operation Northwoods.

Were they swapped for drones? It doesn’t matter. It’s possible but it doesn’t change the fact that the Towers and 7 were wired in advance, weeks before September 11th, with industrial and military explosives because a) that’s what brought the buildings down and b) it proves it was a planned event and that governments lied about the perpetrators.

The repeated posts about Hollow Towers and Energy Guns and There Were No Victims just occludes the thread. It does nothing to change the scientific, engineering, architectural and medical evidence and, more importantly, the political import.

Dr NG Maroudas
Dr NG Maroudas
Sep 15, 2020 11:17 AM
Reply to  Moneycircus

MC, that was a masterly reply to Petra Flaxgirl. And to many other diversionary posts.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Sep 15, 2020 1:09 PM
Reply to  Moneycircus

This is hilarious. I simply cannot believe how difficult it is for me to get across two things on off Guardian:

1. Death and injury were staged on 9/11.
2. A concerted propaganda campaign has been targeted to truthers to maintain their belief in real death and injury.

Either people don’t recognise these two facts or they don’t think they’re important. I’m simply baffled. The article above gives instances of numerous journalists alluding to controlled demolition but the significant fact that they are scripted is not recognised. It’s not recognised below the line either from what I can see. The journalists are scripted. They know. Is this fact not significant?

Fact Checker
Fact Checker
Sep 16, 2020 1:32 AM
Reply to  Moneycircus

This is all very perceptive of you.

I had a buddy who worked at a big white-shoe New York City law firm on some peripheral 9/11-related litigation–and was a die-hard true believer in the official conspiracy theory I should mention–who at one point had access to the manifests for the flights out of D.C., and he did some idle research on the supposed passengers. This was out of a combination of morbid curiosity and a desire for barely-justifiable billing.

He admitted to me (I was in my Proselytizing Truther phase) that the personae he researched were mostly laughable cut-outs. Flimsy, intelligence identities. His rationalization was that a flight out of D.C. will always have a bunch of spooks on it, and those heroic spies died in the line of duty!

Of course, the real implication is they were just assumed identities of confederates, who disembarked safely at military bases as the drones did their business.

And for those that keep saying, well, somebody would have talked, I can only again quote George Carlin: “It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it!”

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Sep 24, 2020 3:49 PM
Reply to  Moneycircus

… it doesn’t make an difference to my view of 9/11 whether there were real people or crash test dummies …

Seriously? The essential crime of 9/11 is the killing of 3,000 people and injury to 6,000, no? If no one had been killed on 9/11 we wouldn’t be carrying on like this, would we? Who’d care?

It’s the death and injury that is the crime … except it didn’t happen, just as the planes didn’t.

9/11 was a PSYOP, a p-s-y-o-p, a psyyyyyyyoppp.

People just cannot get it was a psyop. They don’t do things in their psyops unless they want them done. They didn’t want planes (couldn’t have had them anyway) and they didn’t want to kill or injure people … which they also couldn’t have done because too many people were involved.

9/11 was, in effect, a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise pushed out as a real event and it involved hundreds and hundreds including all the scripted reporters on the day … so very counterintuitively scripted to allude to controlled demolition … or seemingly counterintuitive when you’re unaware of the MO.

The truth about the staging of death and injury is massively important for a number of reasons including the ability of truthers to get the truth out, MC, and if you cannot see its importance I’m simply at a loss.

Voxi Pop
Voxi Pop
Sep 15, 2020 4:05 AM

https://worldchangebrief.webnode.com
Poopalosi Is Now A Thing

235 Top US Military Leaders Back Trump/
PAX Trump: Zero Afghan Troops Spring 2021/
“Climate Change” Skips Private Forests/
PA Fed Judge: Lockdowns Unconstitutional/
WI Judge: Private Schools Can Open
Trans Satanist Repub Sherrif? Punks Voters

Antonym
Antonym
Sep 15, 2020 3:03 AM

If the perps could have 19 guys in the air, how many could they have had on the ground? They could have been busy all night before or longer. Most evidence gone up in smoke and dust, witnesses dead or confused by the chaos after.

The FBI and CIA didn’t want too much serious investigation in any ground attack as they knew who the perps were: the CIA’s “own” Jihadi trainees being readied on US mainland soil for ME mayhem, who got off the reservation.

Dr NG Maroudas
Dr NG Maroudas
Sep 15, 2020 11:25 AM

Of course he’s suggesting it, and many similar fancies; electronic mail is cheap.

“You can write anything you like, because ink is cheap and paper is patient. But I poor Empress must be careful what I write because I write on human flesh”. — Empress Catharine to philosopher Diderot.

Antonym
Antonym
Sep 16, 2020 4:22 AM

Why not? In other scenarios the CIA or Mossad do these same things unnoticed.

The other main question is motive. Comparing them gives the Jihadis the best motives to attack WTC7 (Solomon brothers) and the Mossad the worst.
The CIA attacking the Pentagon & the WTC? Absurd.

paul
paul
Sep 16, 2020 3:52 PM
Reply to  Antonym

All these ever-so-radical jihadis who have mysteriously never lifted a finger against Israel are all just trained monkeys serving their Zionist organ grinder.
ISIS, Al Qaida, Al Sham, whatever other names they dream up, are 100% kosher, and led by Mossad agents, all conceived, written and performed by Shlomo..

paul
paul
Sep 15, 2020 7:37 PM
Reply to  Antonym

How many on the ground?
200, give or take half a dozen.
That was the size of the Mossad team rounded up immediately afterwards, that was just allowed to slither off back to Kosherstan scot free by all the rabid Zionist dual nationals liKe Chertoff infesting all levels of the US administration.
There were moslems “involved” – just like Lee Harvey Oswald was “involved” in the murder of JFK.

Petra Liverani
Petra Liverani
Sep 15, 2020 3:00 AM

The big question is though:

Were they speaking candidly or were they scripted?

Zipzap
Zipzap
Sep 15, 2020 1:59 AM

Occam’s Razor says that the simplest explanation is the most likely answer for any question. So, using Occam’s Razor as a guide, one could simply say the World Trade Centre (WTC) collapsed due to a plane strike.

However, Occam’s Razor fails when one realizes that the World Trade Centre was designed to withstand a strike by a Boeing 707 jetliner. The Boeing 737 that hit the WTC wasn’t much heavier than the 707’s the WTC was designed to withstand and could not have dumped much more kinetic energy into the building. That is, the additional kinetic energy would not likely have caused the building to collapse.

Occam’s Razor also fails when one sees how the WTC collapsed – it pancaked in exactly the same way that all other buildings subjected to controlled demolition do.

The jet airplane strike was simply a diversion, a misdirection to hide the fact that the building was brought down by charges that were emplaced beforehand to cut its support beams. The dust that was thrown off the building as the cutting charges did their work is not unusual, as any concrete in the building would have been pulverized by the cutting charges, and this phenomenon has been seen with many other controlled demolitions of large buildings.

It’s well known that several weeks before 9/11, large numbers of workers were sent into the building, ostensibly to do maintenance work. They would have had ample opportunity and time to place the explosive charges. If they hadn’t already been preinstalled to make the job of demolishing the building easier when it had reached the end of its useful service life, that is.

Less well known is the fact that in terms of business activity, the WTC hadn’t been doing well, as many tenants were leaving. Therefore, the owners of WTC would have had motive to destroy the building to collect on a $1 billion insurance policy and recoup on their growing losses.

The US government also had sufficient motive to act, and it did so by sending military forces into Afghanistan shortly after 9/11, as the WTC strike was ostensibly the work of terrorists. However, it is ludicrous to believe that a few men with no experience flying jetliners and only weeks of training on small, single-engine prop-driven civilian aircraft like Cessna 150’s or Piper Cubs, could have successfully navigated the planes they allegedly hijacked right into the WTC. It takes a lot of skill to be able to properly land any aircraft, never mind navigate one around skyscrapers at relatively low altitudes.

The US government could have used a different excuse, but the WTC strike dovetailed perfectly with their plans because it was so dramatic that no one would question the justification for going into Afghanistan.

One thing I’ve always found curious is how numerous news cameras were trained on the WTC on 9/11. Was this mere coincidence, or did the news media have foreknowledge of what was going to go down, and when?

wardropper
wardropper
Sep 15, 2020 3:38 AM
Reply to  Zipzap

We should have in mind that it is possible to misuse Occam’s Razor, however…
That a bunch of my massively overweight relatives brought down all the buildings is certainly the simplest explanation, but I assure you it is utterly false…
To be serious, the truth about this matter is not simple, because a great number of people were involved – enough to be able to hide behind each other, and to create several different colours of smoke screen due to the time which has passed since the event.
Thanks to the Internet, we still have access to a lot of visual evidence, and once you have seen a good cross-section of that, you get the picture:
Real evil actually stalks the corridors of Washington and Westminster, and has done for some time. If staggering amounts of money had never been involved, that wouldn’t have been the case today.
Our governments succumb too easily to bribery and threats, because we have lost control of our electoral system, and weak character is now handsomely rewarded. We just cannot get people of real integrity to take on the job of representing us, because they know the current system would eat them alive.

ZenPriest
ZenPriest
Sep 15, 2020 8:22 AM
Reply to  wardropper

Whoever owns your money supply has you by the balls. Don’t do what they want? They’ll cut off your money supply. We know which group owns the money supply. Always follow the money and you will be facing the people controlling everything.

wardropper
wardropper
Sep 16, 2020 7:03 PM
Reply to  ZenPriest

Very true

ZenPriest
ZenPriest
Sep 16, 2020 9:44 PM
Reply to  wardropper

So we know who controls it. Thus, it’s this group all this is coming from. Who else could it come from? Things are always directed by who is in control. Apparently this basic fact is difficult for a lot of people to comprehend. Though some of us see it clear as day.
No other group has the motivation nor ability to pull these kind of scams.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Sep 15, 2020 5:29 AM
Reply to  Zipzap

The razor also fails when you consider WTC7, which was not hit by a plane.

Guy
Guy
Sep 16, 2020 5:15 PM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

WTC7 is the smoking gun and why Architects and Engineers for 9/11 are focusing on it.Of course we know that once it can be acknowledged publicly that it was brought down ,then it follows that the twin towers were charged also ,
just like bldg 7.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Sep 16, 2020 10:20 PM
Reply to  Guy

Well, it would logically follow. I’ve had a lot of success getting people to look more closely at the Twin Towers once they saw the WTC7 case. I used to do a 9/11 lit table, much of the lit coming from AE 911 Truth. But surprisingly, there have been some who have asserted that once “the terrorists” brought down the towers, the opportunistic landlord moved to get rid of WTC7 as well, for the insurance, and did so under cover of the attack. Totally silly, given how much attention was being given the site. Or that he and his cohorts learned of the plot, i.e. US intelligence knew but allowed it to happen, and meanwhile rigged up 7 for demolition in anticipation. The person who asserted that was a self-declared “genius” in biology who had never before heard of “impulse,” claimed the towers had plenty of potential energy to not only smash themselves but cast off large steel beams hundreds of feet horizontally, never considered that energy had to be translated into a horizontal force. He quickly left the conversation (a Web forum) and attacked me for making him feel stupid, attacked the forum for not doing anything about it, in fact left the forum.

95% of the people who have tried defending the official story re WTC7 (in conversations with me) did so by asserting that the collapsing Twin Towers cast off debris (how, with a gravity-driven collapse, per the official story? 🙂 ) which smashed WTC7, were astounded to hear that NIST repudiated that 2004 explanation in 2008, fell into silence. One actually asserted that just because NIST said any structural damage caused by the debris was insignificant doesn’t mean the debris didn’t smash the building, just blatant intellectual dishonesty. That conversation occurred in another context, an “ultra-left” email discussion group, the others castigated not him for his dishonesty, but me, for bringing up “conspiracy theory.”

paul
paul
Sep 15, 2020 7:26 PM
Reply to  Zipzap

The insurance policy was a lot bigger than a measly $1 billion.
Just one of Lucky Larry’s multiple payouts was $3.5 billion.
Don’t call him Lucky Larry for nothing.

Karma Kommando
Karma Kommando
Sep 15, 2020 1:14 AM

They were explosions. It would have been entirely reasonable to assume they had not been caused by aircraft. And why would anyone want to blow up these towers to start a war that had begun in 1999 (Afghanistan) and another which started in 2003 after a pack of lies was told about weapons of mass destruction. The people who start these (still ongoing wars) don’t need an elaborate pile of news grabbing excuses, they will do it anyway. Again and again and again……………

ZenPriest
ZenPriest
Sep 16, 2020 9:47 PM
Reply to  Karma Kommando

Subversion is in their nature. They gain from our disorder. Ordinary people need to start waking up to their games and fast, we are running out of time.

Charlotte Russe
Charlotte Russe
Sep 15, 2020 12:42 AM

IF IT WERE ONLY TRUE

“The world will never be the same” the ex-Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak, an old Jeffrey Epstein chum told a BBC commentator almost immediately after the planes hit the Towers. Ehud, instinctively knew it was Osama bin Laden and blurted it out only to have the reporter say we don’t know for sure whose responsible.  However, as it turned out Ehud’s “blurt” was the adopted official narrative by the “false flag ghouls.” Once that version of the story was released and put into motion it gathered immense momentum becoming the only acceptable explanation. It was repeated a million times in every mainstream media news outlet: “Osama bin Laden planned 9/11, and the planes took down the Towers.” 

 Of course, like all officially endorsed narratives it’s recognized as the ONLY possible explanation and the undeniable truth to be accepted by all. Those who resist or challenge the facts are immediately labeled nutcases or conspiracy theorists. After JFK’s assassination the CIA coined the term conspiracy theorists to smear, shame, and undermine all who questioned the Harvey Oswald lone gunmen story.

  ‘History would be a wonderful thing – if it were only true.’ Leo Tolstoy

That being said, the 9/11 false flag and the subsequent official narrative resulted in more than a million deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. And as we all know Bush’s wars were continued and expanded by Barack Obama into Syria, Yemen, Libya, Ukraine, etc…. millions of lives lost and numerous countries decimated all based on lies……..

I happened to stumble onto this interesting video:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/d8suHOuOhGdN/

DunGroanin
DunGroanin
Sep 14, 2020 11:10 PM

Where is the Sky News coverage and the BBC?

‘ These included the networks ABC, CBS, and NBC; cable news channels CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and CNBC; and local network affiliates WABC, WCBS, and WNBC.’

I watched it in the pub on Sky first and then on the beeb in the office.

It seems they had their own cameras there – am I wrong?

ZigZagWanderer
ZigZagWanderer
Sep 14, 2020 11:37 PM
Reply to  DunGroanin

This is an article specifically about reports of explosions at WTC. I presume the organisations to which you refer had no reporters talking about explosions.

I can’t recall ever seeing or hearing any british reporters talking about explosions.

DunGroanin
DunGroanin
Sep 15, 2020 6:28 AM
Reply to  ZigZagWanderer

It is a simple question -about the overage that the authors clam to have watched to get a continuous picture – both Sky and BC had reporters in New York reporting.

It is a simple question looking for a simple answer – do you know it?

Hugh O'Neill
Hugh O'Neill
Sep 14, 2020 10:30 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

The BBC in London had phenomenal insight when they not only predicted the collapse of “Salomon Bros. Bldg” (aka WTC7) 23 minutes too early, but also explained that the building had been weakened by fire. So it appears the narrative was indeed prepared. Repeat the lie until it becomes the truth.

paul
paul
Sep 14, 2020 10:20 PM
  • “If we get caught, they will just replace us with persons of the same cloth. So it does not matter what you do. America is a golden calf and we will suck it dry, chop it up, and sell it off piece by piece until there is nothing left but the world’s biggest welfare state that we will create and control. Why? Because it is the will of God and America is big enough to take the hit, so we can do it again and again and again. That is what we do to countries that we hate. We destroy them very slowly and make them suffer for refusing to be our slaves.” Netanyahu.
  • “You know very well, and the stupid Americans know, equally well, that we control their Government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, you know it and I know it, that no American President can be in a position to challenge us, even if we do the unthinkable. What can they (Americans) do to us? We control Congress, we control the Media, we control Show Biz, and we control everything in America. In America you can criticise God, but you can’t criticise Israel.” Tzipora Menache, Government Spokesperson.
wardropper
wardropper
Sep 15, 2020 3:59 AM
Reply to  paul

This is where a Gary Larson cartoon comes to mind – the one where God sits at his computer, with his finger hovering over the “SMITE” key…

ZenPriest
ZenPriest
Sep 15, 2020 8:29 AM
Reply to  paul

I have seen literally hundreds of such quotes from the same peoples. And still the normie won’t look into it. Lol.
Will the normie ever wake up? Or will he be too proud to stop his (and his peoples’) demise?

el Gallinazo
el Gallinazo
Sep 14, 2020 10:05 PM

The fact that there were massive explosions prior to the collapse of WTC1 and 2 is a reality and I would be the last to deny it. However, whether the buildings were actually brought down by these explosions is another question. If one discounts the absurd official story of kerosene and soot fires, there are three viable theories as to what actually brought down the towers.
1) Explosions which can be subdivided into conventional and micronukes.
2) Nanothermite cutting the support beams.
3) A beyond top secret directed energy weapon that “dustified” the buildings.

The first thing which one must realize is that these methods are not mutually exclusive. The parasite class, i.e. the perps, could well have used all of them to obfuscate a forensic conclusion. I feel that the beams were certainly cut by nanothermite. For serious students of HOW the buildings were destroyed, the best survey of the crime scene is undoubtedly Prof. Judy Wood’s book. She states in her forward that it is not her job to determine who did it or why they did it. She approached it as a highly qualified forensic investigator (professor of materials engineering). Her job with this book was to offer a comprehensive record of What Happened as well as educated speculation as to HOW it could have happened. She presents many very strange anomalies that simply beggars belief. All the photos in this glossy paged book have links to the originals in higher resolution. In the briefest summary, she presents strong evidence that micronukes were not used as they would have broken the “bathtub” and flooded the area from the Hudson (which didn’t happen.) She also presents strong evidence that the mass of the towers were “dustified” before they hit the ground and carried away by the wind. Her calculations indicate that the seismic impact of the collapse was negligible compared to the mass. Also, there just wasn’t enough wreckage/ debris on the ground and compares it to the controlled demolition of major sport stadiums. IMHO, the exact “How” is not nearly as important as the Who and the Why, and these have been ascertained beyond a reasonable doubt though the mass murderers are incredibly wealthy, are leading figures in the most exclusive clubs, and still walk free.

Paul Vonharnish
Paul Vonharnish
Sep 14, 2020 11:48 PM
Reply to  el Gallinazo

Judy Wood is so far off anything resembling reality, off it’s almost laughable. There are dozens of YouTube videos demonstrating how to cut heavy steel plating, railroad ties, and assorted industrial assemblies using thermite or thermate preparations.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=thermate&docid=608019428986588664&mid=63F5567040BBC090B02563F5567040BBC090B025&view=detail&FORM=VIRE

Architects and Engineers who design large scale steel structures have studied these building failures extensively. They’ve concluded beyond any reasonable doubt, that all three world trade center collapses were controlled demolitions.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Sep 15, 2020 12:18 AM

Unfortunately, i watched her (online, that is) go off the rails, she started out quite reasonable in Summer 2006, but i think partly her own dynamics and partly disrespect she got from other researchers for being a woman, she went into ridiculous territory and seemed to focus her hostility more on other activists, especially David Ray Griffin, than on the perpetrators.

Veronica
Veronica
Sep 15, 2020 1:18 AM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

It was Steven Jones, not Griffin, that Judy Wood attacked. She published a series of articles attacking his personal and professional integrity and implied he was behind the murder of a grad student of hers.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Sep 15, 2020 2:03 AM
Reply to  Veronica

That happened too, it’s how the dynamic started, although someone who at first associated himself with Jones started attacking her on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth forum, and then quite suddenly, after rancor had built up, changed sides to line up with her. But as time went on, she started focusing more on Griffin, viewing him as the main evil force. I was there to witness it.

Catte Black
Catte Black
Sep 15, 2020 10:21 AM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

Hi – could you tell a little more about the disrespect Judy got for being a woman?

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Sep 15, 2020 5:00 PM
Reply to  Catte Black

Some of it was in the form of “What could you possibly know?” and “How dare you contradict….?” Others attacked her article about billiard balls for not explaining everything about the WTC, when it wasn’t intended to do so, and she stated so, only the timing issue. And there were some who actually called her a bitch, said her article should be torn up and thrown in the trash,…. totally disrespectful. And unfortunately, little was done about that tone. As i said, the principal perp against her ended up doing a 180 and supporting her when she finally started going ballistic. Very suspicious, IMHO.

Catte Black
Catte Black
Sep 15, 2020 7:56 PM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

Were you present on the ST911 forum?

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Sep 15, 2020 9:11 PM
Reply to  Catte Black

I wasn’t a member, but was able to see the discussions, Judy provided me access since she found me receptive.

Catte Black
Catte Black
Sep 16, 2020 7:27 PM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

do you mind if I email you? Do we have a working address?

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Sep 16, 2020 10:06 PM
Reply to  Catte Black

I’m reluctant to post my email on a public forum, but you can find me on Facebook.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Sep 16, 2020 10:26 PM

Oh, i didn’t realize that was possible. Thanks for letting me know. Yes, for sure!

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Sep 16, 2020 11:45 PM
Reply to  Catte Black

Admin just cleared up. Yes, my email address is working.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Sep 16, 2020 11:49 PM
Reply to  Catte Black

Yes, working address, go ahead and contact.

Peter Jennings
Peter Jennings
Sep 15, 2020 7:43 PM
Reply to  el Gallinazo

There is another possibility, albeit slight as the best so explanation so far has involved Thermite. Especially as molten steel was seen dripping from the building.

That of a small nuclear device used as a shaped charge straight up the lift shafts.

Grafter
Grafter
Sep 14, 2020 9:55 PM

For goodness sake ! We all know it’s a scam by the psychotically ill people who control their government. Nobody can challenge the shit they have delivered . The Covid scam is the very same. More shit and confusion with large helpings of fear on top. The general public are so dumbed down now that they will believe anything that’s framed in the right way. Just ask O.J.Simpson. Have said this many times but America is a real and present threat to our planet as their legal institutions have been infiltrated and corrupted by the parasitical elite who now seek power and financial control worldwide.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Sep 14, 2020 9:14 PM

One more great piece of writing about 9/11 by Graeme MacQueen. And those who don’t get why any attention is being paid to events which happened 19 years ago, i feel sorry for you. Everything being done today is the result of a road paved by 9/11, including the very ability of governments to enact many of the emergency measures they have put forth. You can’t oppose the Covid regime while turning a blind eye to 9/11.

Loverat
Loverat
Sep 14, 2020 11:33 PM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

This article from RT provides some backing for what you say. If only more people could link up these events, history wouldn’t keep being repeated.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/500677-covid-september-11-parallels/

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Sep 15, 2020 12:19 AM
Reply to  Loverat

Several pieces posted here have made the same points.

Guy
Guy
Sep 16, 2020 5:47 PM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl
Grattan Healy
Grattan Healy
Sep 14, 2020 8:59 PM

Allow me to immodestly present an article I had published 4 days after 9/11
http://web.archive.org/web/20020321152655/http://www.spectrezine.org/war/Grattan.htm

Gerry
Gerry
Sep 14, 2020 10:09 PM
Reply to  Grattan Healy

Hi Grattan, that must be a decent article, as the link is no longer valid.

BS will linger on the web forever, truth needs to be disappeared.

I also up voted you, which registered +4 then 0, then when I tried again, you have already up voted this person was the message, that says a lot.

send the link to [email protected] and i read it then.

There is no anonymity on line from the 5 eyes, but they can all swivel.

Mick
Mick
Sep 14, 2020 10:22 PM
Reply to  Gerry

Well I just read it! And you are right it is a decent article.

Hugh O'Neill
Hugh O'Neill
Sep 14, 2020 11:01 PM
Reply to  Grattan Healy

Very perceptive and right on the money. It is no surprise now that I am having difficulty retrieving from the Memory Hole the 1998 PNAC paper by Zelikow, Carter & Deutch entitled “Catastrophic Terrorism” which positively lusts after a major incident e.g. the collapse of WTC, in which thousands would die. We could then Beverly curtail civil liberties and have the wars of our choice. Zelikow would go onto later fame as the chair f the 9/11 Truth Commission which concluded that no-one could have imagined such a terrible event, somehow forgetting that he himself had written a paper which was vindication for his power of imagination…Very modest chap.
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”
Zelikow’s academic expertise is on the creation of myths, paticularly connected to the assassination of JFK. He is clearly an avuncular, bespectacled story teller with a great imagination – sort of Brother Grim type.

Hugh O'Neill
Hugh O'Neill
Sep 14, 2020 11:04 PM
Reply to  Hugh O'Neill

Bloody predictive text! Maybe thats what caused the BBC to predict the WTC7 collapse. The computer simply took charge? Anyway, I have no idea why “Beverly” wished to curtail civil liberties. Maybe she’s Philip’s alter ego?

Hugh O'Neill
Hugh O'Neill
Sep 15, 2020 12:38 AM
Reply to  Jeffrey Strahl

Thanks JS. I also found that link, but not being a subscriber, could not read the whole article to check if it had been doctored i.e. the incriminating parts removed.

Jeffrey Strahl
Jeffrey Strahl
Sep 15, 2020 6:44 AM
Reply to  Hugh O'Neill

Thought i had the complete item in my files. I do, but in print form, i.e. my paper files, Oh well.

Loverat
Loverat
Sep 14, 2020 11:23 PM
Reply to  Grattan Healy

Yes, impressive thought processes just days after, Mr Healy. You’ll be an old hand at this game by now.

As for this article, must have taken ages to put together. Probably need to browse more in the days coming. Just an initial thought, it’s an incredible amount of research for examining the perceptions of eye witnesses and news crews at the scene. I suspect this is one to go through more thoroughly and will appreciate the perspective far better.