After much deliberation and an exhaustive effort to seek out trustworthy voice identification experts and/or linguistic profilers, I have decided to post this article for review by the general public without “expert” verification. Before I get into the details of what I suspect to be a smoking gun which incriminates the mainstream media, I want to be very clear that this analysis depends largely on my opinion regarding voice identification. However, 100% of the relatively small group of people I trusted enough to share this information with prior to this post agree with my opinion. Whether or not you agree this analysis will likewise depend on your own opinions of voice identification after you hear the audio from the source footage I am about to present.
My discovery of this evidence was purely accidental. I was in the process of multitasking, simultaneously reviewing "9/11 - As it Happened” videos for two purposes. My first goal was to ascertain exactly when the first video that showed both the alleged UA175 and the WTC2 “impact hole” was released to the public (still unsure.. 9/12?). My second goal was to amass a list of witnesses who claim to have seen big Boeings flying into the towers, figuring that they would make great candidates for lie detector tests come prosecution time (my favorite lie detector candidate: Stanley Praimnath).
I’m sure many of you are familiar with at least part of this footage, including the commentary. However, many of these clips end before they get to the dialogue I am about to analyze. The video I am referring to is here. I found it at Killtown’s “2nd Hit" webpage (video group 2, far right).
In the first 2 ½ minutes of this video, anchorman Jim Ryan (WNYW in NY) is interviewing an alleged eyewitness “Jim Friedl,” who supposedly saw the first big Boeing “bank sharply” and then “fly directly” into WTC1, from a vantage point somewhere in Hoboken, NJ.
Jim Ryan then goes on to summarize the previous interview until 3:02 of the video, at which time we observe the fireball from the alleged second plane impact.
Nine seconds later, at 3:11 of the video, “Jim Friedl” appears to still be on the air, asking “Was that a plane?” Thirteen seconds after that, he again pipes up, saying “Oh, my God!”
Nothing unusual so far here… until seventeen seconds later at 3:41 of the video, when a man speaks into a radio, saying the following: “[Grade] 9, Chopper 5… Is anybody on?”
This is what immediately caught my attention. Although there is some distortion due to the fact that this man was speaking into a radio, his voice sounded much the same as the voice of “Jim Friedl,” the same “witness” they had just interviewed and was still on the line 17 seconds earlier.
Notice how quickly the chopper radio call is faded out. The fact that it was faded out at all proves that this voice came from an incoming feed to the studio, meaning that it cannot be claimed that this voice came from inside the studio.
Furthermore, notice that there are no audible “clicks” of any kind that would indicate either the termination of the “Jim Friedl” phone connection or the initiation of any new audio connection from which the chopper radio call may have been picked up.
As if this weren’t suspicious enough, pay attention to the reaction of Lyn Brown (Jim Ryan’s female co-anchor) immediately after the radio communication. Was that “mmph” an attempt to retroactively cover up a FOX blooper? Or was it the equivalent of “Oh, my God… did we ever just screw up”
On this point, perhaps I need to point something out. There is another source of this audio on YouTube which has a different video feed and begins 4:56 prior to the video which I was analyzing and have linked to above.
This new source of audio, with a completely different video feed, was posted to YouTube on October 3, 2006. In this new video, I counted a remarkable nine “mmph”s from Lyn in a span of 1:38 (3:10-4:48). Either Jim Ryan is poking her with a sharp stick during that time or she briefly developed a toned down variety of Tourette Syndrome. However, over the next 4 minutes, she only gives us two “mmph”s, once in response to Jim Ryan saying “My goodness,” and her most emphatic of all “mmph”s after “Jim Friedl” radios to Chopper 5.
Regardless of whether or not the audio has been altered in this newly released video, my argument remains unchanged. If the voice of the man communicating with Chopper 5 is indeed still “Jim Friedl,” this would add even further to proof of involvement of the mainstream media in the crimes of 9/11.
Not only did they produce images of fake planes that were never there; they would also have produced fake eyewitnesses!
Form Your Own Opinion
Under the Reference heading at the end of this article, I have included links to help aid you in forming your own opinion. I have created a timeline that ties every point I have referenced from the original source file to a specific time, so that you can find it more easily. Also, there are three files which isolate “Jim’s” voice from critical points in the audio. I highly recommend the use of headphones during all audio review.
Questions About “Jim Friedl”
Even if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that “Jim Friedl” was in direct radio contact with Chopper 5, there is still much left to debate.
First of all, what was Chopper 5? Was it FOX 5’s only chopper, thus aptly named? Was it a military chopper? Could it have been a FEMA chopper?
Secondly, where was “Jim Friedl,” and why did he have so many means of communication at his disposal? 53 seconds into the video, we hear a phone ring. This seems to distract “Jim,” causing him to stop and restart his sentence at the word “directly.” If you turn your volume up and listen closely, you will hear a second phone ringing with a slightly higher pitch in the background. Anyone who has ever had more than one phone connected to the same line should be able to attest to the fact that they don’t always ring in perfect harmony. Often times, the rings are staggered. Notice the higher pitched phone is still ringing after the phone closest to “Jim” stops.
So let’s see. Two phones on the same line plus the cell phone he was using for the interview plus the radio he needed to communicate with the chopper. Does it sound like “Jim Friedl” was just an ordinary citizen at home in Hoboken?
If that was “Jim” talking to Chopper 5, my guess is that he had a bird’s eye view of the entire scene. This is reinforced by the fact that it would have been impossible for him to have seen “debris flying out the other side,” since “the other side” is the backside from Hoboken. If he can really see through buildings, he and Stanley Praimnath should get together and compare superpowers. Based on the two land line phones, he was most likely either indoors or on a balcony. Having two phones attached to the same line is extremely rare in office buildings, so I’m guessing he was either in an apartment building or a hotel room. Having two phones in one apartment also seems somewhat rare, so I definitely lean toward a large hotel room, possibly a suite.
Finally, who was “Jim Friedl?” Well, if he lied about seeing a large plane hit WTC1, and he lied about being in Hoboken, and he was most likely in contact with the chopper that fed us the live image with the inserted CGI, do you really think he’d tell the truth about his name?
He identifies himself as Grade 9 when he hails Chopper 5. This could open up speculation of military association (E9 Grade is the pay scale for a Sergeant Major or Command Sergeant Major in the Army), which would lead to speculation of the chopper also being military. It could also be a call sign he chose for himself if he worked for either a media or FEMA chopper crew.
I’m no linguistic profiler or anything, but that won't stop me from coming to these two basic conclusions based on the audio:
1.) His accent does not sound like that of a native NY/NJ resident.
2.) His diction indicates to me that he is well educated.
An "expert" linguistic profiler should be able to conclude much more than I have, certainly not as detailed as his home address, but possibly as detailed as his home state and his educational background.
As far as any additional task that “Jim Friedl” may have performed in the operation (besides providing a fake eyewitness account), I couldn’t even begin to speculate as to what he might have been doing in the 37 seconds between the instant he finished the interview and the instant of detonation of the explosions inside WTC2, because I honestly have no idea. In order to determine that, we would need answers to at least some of the many questions I’ve raised here for debate.
To summarize my beliefs, “Jim Friedl” is lying in this eyewitness interview. He lied about both where he was and what he saw. Regardless of whether he is a media, military or some other type of government employee, he was a part of the 9/11 operation. Everybody in that studio had to know that after hearing that call to Chopper 5. The media was also in on the 9/11 operation. Their job was to sell us on the fake planes and to sell us stories from fake eyewitnesses… like “Jim Friedl.”
There is a tremendous amount of evidence very similar to this instance that anyone can extract from all of these “As it Happened” videos. Once you are able to accept that no big Boeings crashed anywhere on 9/11/01, all of this evidence suddenly becomes obvious, as if someone has lifted a fog from in front of your eyes and removed plugs from your ears.
Phony witnesses are exposed. Media reporters can clearly be heard to manipulate our interpretation of the day’s events. There is a veritable treasure trove of evidence out there just waiting to be seen and heard with “more intelligent” eyes and ears than we had five years ago.
I encourage you all to go out and find it. This article is merely one example. There are plenty of “Jim Friedl’s” and Stanley Praimnath’s out there just waiting to be discovered.
The only rebuttal being offered against no big Boeings is eyewitness testimony. This is because there is no possible scientific rebuttal. Scientific rebuttal is impossible because unlike the laws of societies, the Laws of Physics can be neither abolished nor changed.
When someone offers an eyewitness as rebuttal, make sure you thank them for providing you with a new lead. If you are near Manhattan, you can travel to where these witnesses claim to have been and evaluate whether they could have seen what they say they did.
Is there really a fire escape platform outside the 14th floor at the corner of Hudson & Franklin that “Rosa Cordona Rivera” could have been standing on, smoking a cigarette? If so, what was her view like?
Print out a screenshots from any of these 2nd hit videos and attempt to determine where these cameramen were standing. Were they inside a building? Were they on a rooftop? Were they inside St. Paul’s Chapel? Look at these videos more closely and ask yourselves why these people were filming at all, if not for the sole purpose of providing footage to later insert a CGI plane. Place yourself in the shoes of this person and ask yourself if your first instinct after hearing a plane above and behind you (while filming WTC1 from a pointless angle) would have been to zoom out and center your camera on WTC2. Or do you think you may have chosen to look up instead?
Again, once you realize that all of these videos have been faked, you can clearly see exactly how highly improbable, if not downright impossible, the circumstances behind these videos are. It becomes almost comical when you begin imagine how these guys could have had the presence of mind to detect and subsequently film an incoming plane, yet not even think to say a word to each other about it until more than a second after it hits WTC2?
I could go on and on. But I wouldn’t want to be greedy and deprive all of you of your own piece of the huge mass of evidence awaiting discovery.
I highly recommend the following sites to start you on your own personal path to 9/11 truth:
Introduction to 911 research
Killtown's: Questioning the 9/11 attacks...
No More Games • Net
Please note that the sound you hear in the middle of "Grade 9, Chopper 5. Is anybody on?" has not been added to these audio excerpts. This sound is the voice of Jim Ryan. When removed from the context of the surrounding audio, Jim Ryan's voice becomes much harder for a listener to tune out. The only audio modification performed in these files was a volume control adjustment to compensate for the studio technician's immediate fade-out of the "chopper call" incoming feed.
Visual:Fox Blooper Timeline