I have been itching to get to this “Eyewitness Report Card” series for some time now. There are so many obvious holes in so many ridiculous eyewitness accounts that are just begging to be pointed out. In fact, after having spent months carefully compiling a long list of lying "eyewitnesses," I could very well spend an entire year on this series and still only scratch the surface of this list.
However, deconstructing every single eyewitness account offered up on 9/11/01 represents an exercise as daunting as it is redundant. And so to help ease this task, I needed to pare the list of candidates down to a reasonable number. For now, the simplest way to do this was to eliminate the "first plane eyewitnesses."
Unfortunately, this temporarily absolves some of the people I was most looking forward to leading off this series with, such as Sean Murtagh, “Rosa Cardona Rivera,” and my old punching bag “Jim Friedl.” Sadly, these “eyewitnesses” must be set on the back-burner for the time being.
The reason I have chosen to focus on the “second plane eyewitnesses” is because there is now irrefutable proof that the “second plane” was a CGI. Therefore, it is impossible for anyone who wasn’t watching television on that day to have seen anything strike WTC2.
Although people who were in downtown Manhattan that day may have somehow mistakenly identified what struck WTC1 as some form of commercial aircraft, it is now a proven fact that the “eyewitnesses” who said they saw the “second plane” were blatantly lying.
And so, with my priorities now set – I can begin to “grade” my first “eyewitness”
Rose Marie Arce – Introduction
After careful consideration, I’ve decided to lead off this series with Rose Arce. At the time, Rose was a CNN Producer. Apparently, she has since been promoted to a Senior Producer. What makes Rose such a compelling “eyewitness” is that her story has morphed over time.
Before I go any further, I think it is important to recognize that while we have good reason to be angry at the mainstream media for ignoring the complete 9/11 truth, whether we choose to be angry at individual reporters, anchors, and producers depends on our own personal value system.
Perhaps I should illustrate this point with a hypothetical scenario:
Imagine you were offered 15 minutes of airtime on the “XYZ National News” to divulge everything you know about 9/11. There are only 3 terms that come with the offer:
1.) You can say anything you want in that 15 minute time span
2.) After you finish, you will never work again
3.) During the entire 15 minutes, you must play the Solitaire version of “Russian Roulette”
That is essentially what every media employee risks if they were to ever try to expose the truth behind 9/11. That decision involves definite career suicide, potential “actual” suicide, and the very real possibility that the general public is already too brainwashed to take them seriously.
Try “googling” April Oliver and/or Jack Smith if you want to see the precedent that was set prior to 9/11 for what happens to people who report news that the government doesn’t want us to see and hear.
Of course, I don’t know enough about Operation Tailwind to declare whether the story was right or wrong. All I know is that CNN reacted to government/military pressure and retracted the story without a proper investigation (and settled every subsequent lawsuit as quietly as possible).
Getting back on track, my point was that a precedent had been set. April and Jack were ousted from the industry, never to work in broadcasting again.
Having gotten that disclaimer out of the way, I will ultimately leave it up to you to decide whether you think Rose is lying to save her career/life, whether she’s lying because she thinks she’s good at it, or whether she’s intentionally lying badly enough to leave us with easy clues to follow on our quest for truth.
Analysis
For my analysis, I will be using four different sources to represent the “story” of Rose Arce. Two of these are in video format (one provided + one transcript), and two come from articles.
Analysis – As it Happened
The first video is from ground zero after the WTC2 explosions. In the clip below, Rose is interviewed by Daryn Kagan for about 2 minutes (conveniently picking up where we left off with Winston Mitchell from the previous article), from Video Run Time (VRT) 3:30 to 5:30.

In actuality, this isn’t an eyewitness account at all, which is why I found it to be so interesting. Sure, she is talking about what is going on at 9:23am – but notice that she never mentions seeing any “plane” herself just 20 minutes before this interview.
Instead, she specifically says “… and when they saw the second plane…” (more on this “quote” later).
Analysis – America Remembers
Now let’s fast forward to CNN’s “America Remembers” tribute DVD. Due to possible copyright infringement, the best source I can offer here is the CNN transcript of this DVD. In this video, Rose suddenly seems to have become one of “they,” as she now recollects:
"I got within a few blocks of the World Trade Center when suddenly there was this second sort of, um, roar that came out of the sky and everyone just looked right up and another plane came and just barreled into the other tower."
So - was she really an eyewitness? Interesting that although she insinuates that she saw the plane, she still doesn’t actually say that. This “trick” is easier to see when we break this quote down into four distinct sentences:
I got within a few blocks of the World Trade Center.
Suddenly there was this second sort of, um, roar that came out of the sky.
Everyone just looked right up.
Another plane came and just barreled into the other tower.
So, did Rose hear the roar or was it just “there?” Did she look up from inside the car she was in, or was she not including herself when she says “everyone?” Did she actually see a plane, or did it just “come?”
Ah, the lost art of language: How to say something without really saying anything. So far, that’s exactly what Rose has managed to do. She’s obviously not going to lie about seeing a plane on camera, so let’s move… wait a minute… there’s more?
“I looked up and the first thing I thought is my God a plane is flying so low in a big city with these tall buildings. What's it doing so low? There was a schoolyard across the street and I remember there were kids that were being evacuated from the schoolyard and one of the girls looked up in the sky and she said to her father: "Daddy, look they're doing it on purpose."
(So much for her not lying about seeing a plane on camera)
Anyway, as I was starting to say, let’s move on to the articles, shall we?
Analysis - Newspaper Research Journal (Winter 2003)
After she got her coffee, she heard on NPR radio that something happened at the World Trade Center. "It sounded ominous. I immediately flipped on my cell phone and called the office. I said, 'I heard about the World Trade Center. Where do you want me to go because I'm going to start running downtown?' Whoever answered the phone said, 'Just go, go, go and call us when you get there.'"
From the outset of this article, notice where Rose was and how she learned about the events going on at the towers. She then goes on in greater detail about how she actually got downtown:
Rose lives near Horatio and Washington, which make a straight line down to the Trade Center. "I started running south, and people were just standing in the street, looking up. I got about two blocks and could see the building on fire." An African-American woman, who Rose said she would never forget, came by in a black Lexus. She knocked on her window and flashed the press ID hanging around her neck. "I said, 'Hey, I'm with CNN. Please give a ride downtown.' I jumped into her car, and she took me down a few blocks from the Trade Center," she said.
First of all, from that far away, there would be no need to "look up" to see the top of the towers. Second, notice how the article continues to mix direct quotes from Rose in with their printed version of her story. Is this intentional, or were the authors just cleaning up what Rose actually said? Hard to say for now, so let’s keep going a little further – I’ll help keep track of Rose’s actual words by highlighting them:
Her cell phone had stopped working, so she ducked into a deli to use the phone to call CNN. Then, she started running farther south with a swarm of people coming at her. "It was like a weird movie. People were running in business suits, all with cell phones trying to talk as they were running. I was running against the traffic. My intention was to get inside the North Tower because that is what I did in 1993. Then there was this hum, like when the subway is passing underneath me, except that it was in the air."
As she was being pummeled by people running past her, she saw a little girl nearby who was screaming, "Daddy, Daddy! They are doing it on purpose!" First, there was a loud sound, and then a plane came out of nowhere and "just slammed into the building." She still had her cell phone in her hand and was frantically trying to dial CNN. But, she just kept getting a busy signal.
Here we go again. “There was a hum in the air,” but did she hear it? What exactly “just slammed into the building” if not “a plane?” How could she possibly have phrased that sentence in such as way as to not allow “a plane” to be placed within that quote? At least from here we learn that she doesn't expect us to believe she saw the "second plane" from inside a car. So far, it appears from this article that this woman is incapable of passing by a deli without going inside.
Pausing for a moment for a time recap: Fifteen minutes was the maximum time lapse between any news report of the "first plane" and the "appearance" of the "second plane." Let's see, take away 5 minutes of first deli delay time (including a call to CNN and running a block or two), 5 minutes of second deli phone time - that's 10 minutes, leaving only 5 minutes of hitchhiking/drive time in order to get her there in time to see the "second plane." Five minutes? On that day? In that traffic? Surely, for the story to be true, my "deli time" estimates must be wrong... “I was in my apartment in downtown Manhattan when I heard a tremendous explosion. I ran to the street with my cell phone, and started moving south.” What happened to that trip to the deli after observing a beautiful day? Before we start assuming that the Adiletto family paid her off to promote their deli in her revised story, let’s take a minute to evaluate how reasonable this original claim is.
Moving on, we start to get a sense of Rose’s true ability to “bend the truth.” In her video interview with Daryn Kagan, she creates the illusion that she is (in Daryn’s words) “on the ground there near the World Trade Center.” Yet, in this article – after being “pummeled” by people running from the scene, she leaves the “ground” and enters the apartment of Jim and Julie Huibregtse.
As CNN showed live pictures of the Towers smoking in the distance, Rose described what she was witnessing. She could either stay where she had a phone or try to get closer to the scene. "I was frantic to get inside the building. I was only two or three blocks away. But, I couldn't because my phone wasn't working. So, I stayed at this guy's phone. When I finally got through to Atlanta, they were so panicked. They would suddenly throw me on air again with the anchor. I kept stretching the phone cord and saying, 'You won't believe what I'm looking at.'"
She never does get her cell phone to work, so she is actually indoors during the Daryn Kagan interview. Now might be a good time to go back and listen to that interview again (quick link).
Notice how Rose can’t answer any of Daryn’s questions, such as “Do you have anybody with you right now that could talk about being inside the World Trade Center when this happened?” Instead of answering Daryn's question, Rose replies “Right now, honestly, there are scores of people that are literally running by me…”
In fact, up to this point of the article, Rose has given us no clear indication of having spoken to anyone who was inside either one of the towers. So where then, did she get her Kagan-interview “quotes” from?
Did she forget to mention all the people she must have interviewed in order for her to be able to report their "comments" to us? Specifically (from the video link above):
“…many of them were inside the building when they felt the explosion and they say there was just pandemonium. There was no warning, no alarms, no anything. Everyone just raced from their desks, ran downstairs, and now there is a steady stream of folks running away from the building – some people saying that they’re fearing there will be another explosion, and when they saw the second plane, convinced that this was dangerous - there’s just an absolute flood of folks escaping downtown Manhattan right now.”
Is it just me, or does anybody else think she just made that stuff up? I mean, what kind of a moron would tell Rose that they would expect alarms to warn them that a plane was about to crash into their tower?
Also, remember that this is only 20 minutes after the “second plane impact,” and that Rose was *supposedly* 2-3 blocks away from the towers. It had to take at least 5 to 10 minutes to introduce herself to Jim and Julie and figure out the whole “speaker phone ordeal.”
How did all these “running folk” manage to see the “second plane” (that wasn’t there) if they were all running to the north? Even if they had started 35 minutes earlier (after the “first plane impact”), how many floors up could they have been to be able to get 3 blocks away to interview with Rose within 25 minutes (since she would have had to have gone indoors 10 minutes before the Kagan interview)?
Of course, that only matters if she even was 3 blocks away. I certainly hope for her sake that Jim and Julie moved since that day, because the only address listing for any Huibregtse in the area is 1.75 miles away (not exactly the best view from there, either - unless you're on the roof).
I think you get my drift when I refer to Rose’s ability to “bend the truth.” So let’s move on to the final article I managed to dig up and see what else we can find.
Analysis – Reporting from Ground Zero
The opening sentence of this article, written by Rose Arce herself on 9/12/01 pretty much says it all:
According to the last article I referenced, Rose’s apartment was near Horatio and Washington. The address of the Adiletto Deli is 812 Washington St. According to Mapquest, that’s 2.32 miles from the World Trade Center.
How reasonable does it seem that the explosion was so loud that it could be deemed to be “tremendous” from an indoor location that was 2.32 miles away? I think it would be far more reasonable to believe that she may have felt the seismic wave caused by the basement explosion.
Speaking of reasonable, I find it extremely difficult to believe that she intended to run all the way to the towers? Does she not own a car? Are there no taxis in New York? How does she usually get to work?
Conclusion
There are so many inconsistencies in Rose Arce’s “eyewitness accounts,” I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that she wasn’t even in New York on September 11, 2001.
She obviously didn’t see the “second plane,” because it didn’t exist. I find it difficult to believe that she had time to talk to anybody that was inside either tower, especially if the address of the Huibregtse’s hasn’t changed.
According to Columbia University, Rose graduated from Barnard College in 1986. I find it extremely unlikely that she would happen upon “a resume from a kid that had gone to my college who was applying for a job to work in the World Trade Center.”
Barnard is a women’s college. Even given the age difference, wouldn’t she refer to this person as “a girl” instead of “a kid?” My guess is, perhaps Rose embellished upon her original story of finding “this woman’s resume” because she was jealous of the government’s hijacker passport whopper?
As you can see, I have more questions than answers here. All I know is that I haven’t found a single verifiable truth in Rose Arce’s constantly-changing story. Somehow, she managed to get promoted to Senior Producer at CNN. Given the source material I’ve reviewed here, the only things I’ve observed her producing are lies and embellishments.
Perhaps it’s time for Columbia to demote Rose from her current alumni ranking (184th) among the “

11 comments:
Google Search: The FBI uses polygraphs to eliminate suspects
I've seen you post this instruction in many places besides here. Do us a favor and tell us what we're supposed to find.
Obviously, 100% of the people who say they saw the second plane and 90% of the people who say they saw the first plane would fail a lie detector test.
But most of these people probably aren't suspects - they're just a step in the procedure that should be used to identify suspects.
We don't need lie detectors to know they're lying. The "Pinocchio" article proved that.
The next step is to question them and find out who instructed/paid them to lie.
So, what exactly is your point? Does googling this text automatically enter us into an NSA database?
> There are so many inconsistencies
> in Rose Arce’s “eyewitness
> accounts,” I wouldn’t be surprised
> to find out that she wasn’t even
> in New York on September 11, 2001.
LOL. She was probably in San Francisco writing a a story on the city's best delis.
Hi StillDiggin,
I really like your "Nose Out" article and I hope this will be taken as friendly criticism, for whatever it's worth.
The first thing is I'd like you to at least consider is the possibility that although you're 100% correct that any video showing the nose-out has to be fake, it doesn't mean they didn't fly some kind of distraction plane and edit that out of the media.
1. The "Big Grey Plane" that some witnesses saw might possibly have been of a color that they could edit out from the live video. The CGI Boeing may also be covering up some smaller damning aircraft (cruise missile, small UAV, etc.)
2. Also, remember there's the Diane Sawyer "White Elephant" plane that is captured on some videos. I'd guess a lot of eye-witnesses saw that and saw the explosion and just linked the two mentally. (Clearly no one saw a big Boeing actually crash.)
3. I know someone who I trust who saw a plane disappear behind the towers from NJ before the second explosion. I'm not saying that any plane crashed, but I think they at least had a plane fly-by then cloak, or some plane-like image up to impress people, even if that's NOT what we see on the videos which got released.
I think it is worthwhile to address the impossibilities in the eyewitness testimony, but I just think you should keep in mind that people may have actually saw a plane but not a plane crash, or even a plane crash, but a "small plane" like initially got reported, and not a giant Boeing.
I'd be interested in what you think of these comments. Thanks for doing the work and analysis you publish on your blog.
Fred
Fred,
What you call "friendly criticism," I call "bargaining."
This article is about Rose Arce's "eyewitness account," which is clearly fiction.
The problem with your "bargaining chips" is that they are as weak as the hand you're holding.
The CGIs did not "hide" anything. As I've already stated, they only thing they could have hidden were sky-clolored objects.
Furthermore, the paths of these CGI's were vastly different from each other, depending on which "live" footage we look at, which renders them incapable of hiding anything real.
Had any "UAV" or "smaller plane" struck the tower, they could not have fully penetrated, just as in the case of any Boeing aircraft.
That leaves us with the scenario of an invisible missile being mistaken for a Boeing?
Rather than allow you to continue trying to "finesse" preposterous scenarios into the heads of the gullible, why don't I just tell everyone what you're really up to?
Everyone,
What "Fred" (aka "BG") is trying to do is to plant the idea that some "eyewitnesses" were confused enough to misinterpret what they saw.
In order to do this, he/she needs to first create the illusion that there was something... anything at all, in the sky.
After planting this seed, he/she can then claim that these "eyewitnesses" were "mistaken," in place of the truth.
The truth, of course, is that these "eyewitnesses" were lying. In Rose's case, she clearly pulled her story out of her "Arce" (sorry, I've been holding back on that pun for as long as I could).
Fred,
Now that your cards have been exposed, please fold, quit trying to sweet talk the chip-leader, and kindly leave the table.
You keep telling me to "remember" or to "keep in mind" the scenarios you bring up, as if they were somehow plausible or remotely backed by any facts.
In that sense, you aren't all that different from Rose. The only question is "Did you pull this crap out of your own Arse, or was it handed to you out of somebody else's Arse?"
Hi StillD,
Well, first off, I'm not BG. Secondly, I guess you're right about the fact that the different CGI paths means they can't really hide something behind the CGI.
On the other hand, I don't think you've ruled out a cloaked "fly-by" plane.
Also, I think you're underestimating CGI technology. You can edit stuff out as well as putting stuff in.
Fred
Fred,
If you are not BG, then you must be his/her replacement.
You are correct that I haven't ruled out a cloaked fly-by "object."
The reason I haven't ruled it out is because I've ignored it.
The reason I've ignored it is because I don't care about it.
The reason I don't care about it is because I'm dealing with "EYEwitnesses," not "EARwitnesses."
I'll go out on a limb here and say that none of these "EYEwitnesses" saw a cloaked fly-by "object" and mistook it for a plane crashing into WTC2.
While it is possible that the perps took the time to create the sound of a plane, that could have been easily accomplished with a very small projectile that would not have necessitated cloaking at all.
At least that event would have had a purpose associated with it.
Conversely, I can think of no purpose that can be associated with any real object that would have required real time removal.
I suppose I could concede that it's possible that they flung thousands of water balloons at WTC2. As pointless as that example may seem, it is possible.
My point is that anything else hitting the tower would have been equally pointless.
The "impact hole" would have been much more easily created from the inside of the tower than from outside.
The "impact explosions" must have also been pre-placed over the prior weekend, as they would have required much greater accuracy than any delivery system could possibly provide.
So tell me, what kind of "stuff" do you suppose they needed to "edit out," and what would its purpose have been?
Until you can come up with a valid reason for trying to push these pointless ideas into people's heads - I will continue to assume that your motive is to protect the very same LIEwitnesses that I'm in the process of exposing.
There are people who saw a plane flying to the WTC at the time of the 2nd hit who weren't interviewed on TV and aren't part of the operation. I'm not saying there were any plane CRASHES, just that I know some people who at least saw a plane fly over Manhattan and disappear behind the WTC at the time of the second hit. It has nothing to do with people interviewed on TV.
By trying to claim that ALL eye-witnesses are liars you're weakening your own arguements.
I don't disagree with your basic thesis that there were no plane crashes.
Sorry to dash your hopes, but I have no plans to write any articles exposing "some people."
For the last time, this series of articles deal with "eyewitnesses" who were presented to us via the media to perpetuate the hoax.
Although some of them may very well be using fake names, at least I have a way of identifying them.
On the other hand, you are an anonymous individual who has opened your comment by stating the hearsay of "some people" that you know as fact.
Thank you for providing me with a fine example of a completely useless comment, so that I can use it to state the following:
Any further useless comments like these, especially when introduced by anonymous posters, will be deleted from this blog.
I specifically deal with facts and logic - neither of which has been offered by the last two anonymous posters here.
Here is a video that shows no plane hitting and the cameraman flinches only after the explosion. Fast forward and use the slider on the video player and goto 16:30 min into the video. I think this cameraman would know for sure whether a plane hit the tower. Would be nice to inspect the original footage. Here is the link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6856793339833407713&q
Hey, I recently added a news widget from www.widgetmate.com to my blog. It shows the latest news, and just took a copy and paste to implement. Might interest you too.
Post a Comment