Thursday, December 28, 2006
As I was reading through some of my old posts at breakfornews.com, I stumbled across a list of eyewitness links offered up by my old pal, Stallion4. One of these links directed me to a blog on 911blogger, which was basically a cut and paste job of a MySpace page.
After reading this guy’s story, I felt obligated to get this page removed from the web – especially after reading all of the sappy reaction comments by people who obviously lack the attention to detail required to see this man’s story for what it is: pure fiction.
This isn’t a difficult lie to expose. In fact, all I have to do is post a link to the story and even the average 9/11 researcher will catch the blatant lie.
Forget the nonsense about working a different shift, talking to his mom, etc. It’s not even about the lack of a “little old lady” under the engine on Church Street. It’s about chronology.
“I heard a deafening explosion, and remember flinching as the first plane struck the north tower of the World Trade Center. You couldn’t really see the towers from where I was standing, which were only a few blocks away. However my peripheral vision caught an orange halo up and to my left. I remember some black streak too, which crossed my vision from left to right, but I can't be sure of that memory. The next thing I remember was a sound, not unlike a serious car accident, just one block west of me on Church Street. My radio exploded just then. I said out loud, "What the fuck is going on"? With my mother still on the phone, I started running west, from Broadway to Church Street.
Having been assigned to the Transit Bureau in the NYPD, I have seen people cut in half by trains, people bleeding out from wounds, compound fractures caused by people just being in a hurry, and countless other morbid forms of human tragedy. You do not expect to see half of a smoking airplane engine on the ground, in front of the Burger King you eat at least once a week. I'm sorry, but nothing prepares you for that. Even worse, I did not expect to see the remains of what I believed was a little old woman, under half of an airplane engine, either. As I stared at the smear that was alive thirty seconds prior, I lifted the phone to my ear and remember wincing at the heat emanating off of the wreckage in front of me.”
Later on, “Craig” talks about being knocked unconscious after the “second plane impact.” Of course, I can’t bring myself to believe a single word of this story, since he expects us to believe that the engine at the corner of Church Street and Warren Street came from the “first plane.”
If the comments below the story on that page are from real people, this is yet another example of how willing people are to gobble up every single 9/11 lie they are offered.
The goal of this article is to have this story permanently removed from the internet. Time will tell if I am successful in this endeavor.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
One of the problems that all of the post production video editors faced when inserting the “nose-out” into all of these videos is that they also had to make it “go away.” It was easy enough for them to make it appear as though 50+ feet of fuselage came out fully-intact from the other side, but to make it “disappear” required a little more creativity.
That’s right folks, Pinocchio has returned to expound upon yet another detail of the post-production fakery: The “Venus Plane Trap.”
The “Venus Plane Trap" was originally present only in the “Gamma Press” post-production video. This video can be viewed here.
Although I've already referred to this video in Part II of the Pinocchio series, I only covered my analysis of the actual protrusion ("nose-out") at that time. In an effort to keep the article short, I decided to save my "issues" with the fireball for a later time.
Analysis – The "Venus Plane Trap"
Picking up where I left off, the last frame of this video that I presented in Part II was frame 84. This is essentially the peak of Pinocchio’s prominence in this video:
After this point of the video clip, Pinocchio is “swallowed” by a bright yellow parabola of Flame-Fakery that I have dubbed the “Venus Plane Trap.” Let’s take a look at a few frames of this Flame-Fakery, shall we?
From frames 92 through 101, it is obvious to see the difference between the actual explosion and the inserted Flame-Fakery:
This theory is easily verified by establishing the absence of the Venus Plane Trap in most of the other videos that have been released. However, before I do that, I want to point out another aspect of this video that proves this portion of the fireball is 2-dimensional.
Analysis – Spatial Ambiguity
Because I prefer to use numbers that are the least favorable to my theories, I will maintain my estimate from Part II that the side of the “fuselage” that is closest to the corner is 10 feet away from it. I will make this assumption in spite of this picture, which clearly shows (amongst other things) that it would have had to be closer than that.
In order for the “Venus Plane Trap” to obscure the “fuselage” from the vantage point of the camera, it would obviously have to be closer to the corner than the “fuselage,” even at the tip of the protrusion.
So how can a fireball that supposedly originated from inside the towers obscure a “plane” that is no farther than 10 feet away from the corner, yet NOT obscure the darker (real) fireball that has originated from just inside the corner? No matter how bright this fireball is, it is certainly not transparent. The fact that we can still see the darker fireball which is clearly coming from the north face indicates that it would be closer to the camera than the bright yellow “Venus Plane Trap.”
If the tip of the protrusion is no farther than 18 feet from the corner (10ft away + 8ft fuselage radius), how wide do you suppose this “Venus Plane Trap” would have to be at the “exit face” for its “mouth” to be swallowing the fuselage tip over 50 feet away? Surely larger than 18 feet, wouldn’t you think?
The impossibility of this phenomenon has but one clear explanation: The “Venus Plane Trap” must be a 2-dimensional fake fireball that was inserted during the post-production editing process.
Analysis – Simplifying to 3 Frames
This “Gamma Press” video has a frame rate of 25 frames/second. The “fuselage” emerges from the “exit face in frame 80. By frame 87, the fake flame has advanced farther than the real flame. At the latest, the “Venus Plane Trap” reaches the plane of the south face of WTC1 by frame 98.
This means that when we go looking for the Venus Plane trap in other videos, it should be clearly visible between 0.28 and 0.72 seconds after the first breach of WTC’s north face (7f / 25f/s = 0.28,18f / 25f/s = 0.72).
The screenshots I will be presenting in the next section are taken from some of the earliest replays we were shown. Of course, I would have preferred to use only “live” video, but for some reason, there doesn't appear to be a single nationally broacast “live” angle that provides a view of either the “impact” face or the “exit” face (hmmm).
In each set, the screenshot on the top left will represent the first frame in which the north face has been breached, the bottom screenshot depicts what the fireball looks like 0.28 seconds after the breach, and the screenshot on the top right will represent what is happening 0.72 seconds after the breach.
What we’ll be looking for in these frames is consistency with what we see here:
Analysis – A Look at Live Shots, Replays, and Early Videos
If the Venus Plane Trap were real, we would expect to be able to clearly differentiate between the bright yellow fireball and the rest of the explosion after 0.72 seconds. The most telling frame will be after 0.28 seconds, which is why I have chosen to blow it up to 2x. In this frame, we should also still be able to see the “nose-out” from virtually any angle.
This CBS replay is very distant, but I can't see the "nose-out" or the lighter color of the "Venus Plane Trap." If anything, the north face fireball appears to be darker than the fireball exiting the east (left hand) face. We need to get closer...
This is a much clearer view. Once again, I don't see a "nose-out" or a "dust snail." The "Venus Plane Trap" doesn't appear to be present either, and the fireball colors look uniform.
Pretty much the same as WPIX, only lower resolution.
The frames in this video seem to be all messed up. Some are duplicated, and some seem to be skipped. There must be more skipped frames than duplicate frames, because the entire event occurs too quickly. Notice how advanced the entire fireball is after only 0.72 seconds. Once again, the exit fireball appears darker on the north face. There appears to be a "nose-out," but I can't see a "Venus Plane Trap."
Another oddity in this video is the crooked foreground building, with a higher resolution on its right side than its left. I'm already covering plenty of ground in this article without going into that, so I'll stop at just mentioning it.
This is the clearest view yet of the "nose-out," yet once again, the "Venus Plane Trap" fails to make an appearance. Fireball coloration appears close to being uniform on both faces.
Analysis - Summary of Comparisons
The "Gamma Press" / KTLA footage shows the clearest view of both the "nose-out" and the "Venus Plane Trap." In fact, I found no trace of the latter in any other "live," replayed, or early "amateur" video. The closest angle I was able to find was the Evan Fairbanks footage, which shows the "nose-out," but not the "Venus Plane Trap."
Analysis – Identifying the Second Generation Videos
As I pointed out in Pinocchio: Part II, the absence of a hole in the North face of WTC2 proves that what is shown protruding over 50 feet out of this face cannot possibly be a fully-intact nosecone and fuselage.
Given more time to evaluate the scenario, I find it difficult to believe that the perps wouldn’t have realized this obvious problem. In the second generation “wtc2-strike” videos (I believe released by indymedia), they attempt to kill two birds with one video series (in actuality, I’m sure they attempted to fix more than just those 2 elements).
The two main “birds” they needed to address were the physical impossibilities of both the 50+ feet of protruding “plane” and the “Venus Plane Trap.” I believe that “wtc2-strike-7.avi” was specifically created as a preemptive measure for the inevitable day when these physical impossibilities would be pointed out.
When I use the same 3-frame analysis technique as I did in the last section, notice how prominent the "Venus Plane Trap" is in this video:
Notice also how they have magically transformed the “nose-out” into a “dust snail.” They're trying to kill Pinocchio! They worked so hard to cram him in, and now they're trying to give him a makeover. Is anyone in here falling for that trick?
They've chosen to solve their aforementioned "spatial ambiguity" problem by moving the darker fireball to the east, making room for the 3D version of the "Venus Plane Trap." Watch as they "walk it to the east" while we take a look at a critical 10-frame sequence of this obvious forgery:
I’ve dubbed this video “Snail Swallow.” The "Venus Plane Trap" has been brought to life here as well. Seemingly, it notices the "dust snail" next to it and turns its head before swallowing the snail whole.
When looking at this frame-by-frame, it is easy to lose a sense of the speed at which this “dust snail” would have been traveling. This is because (just like the fuselage it is attempting to replace) the "dust snail" clearly isn't anything real.
Remember, they NEEDED to make this new video because at some point, they realized that someone was going to notice that there wasn’t a hole in the exit face of WTC2 to accommodate the exit of a fully-intact fuselage (or any other solid entity).
The only logical alternative to a solid was dust (that cop from Terminator II was busy). In order to make sure we can identify this new “snail form” as dust rather than a solid, they have gone out of their way to create neat little pockets of dust clouds within the overall "fuselage" shape.
The utter absurdity of this video lies in its entire depiction of the “exit scenario.” It is absurd that dust traveling in excess of 300mph would not only maintain its shape, but that it will form neat little "pockets" (with no motion- blur). Was it wearing a dust condom?
All other dust/debris from every other face is being dispersed as it is propelled by explosions, yet this “dust snail” is apparently immune. Wouldn't that dust be pushed eastward along with the fireball that they needed to move? Perhaps it was too busy performing its plane impersonation to be affected by mere explosions?
In addition to this absurdity, the behavior of the fireball is equally unbelievable. The draft force of a real fireball would have acted upon the “dust snail,” pushing it aside and dispersing it at the same time – as opposed to "swallowing it whole."
This video was clearly created to offset the impossible aspects of the “Gamma Press” and KTLA “footage.” This newer video also contains the same premature shadow as the KTLA angle, which spans the entire length of the tower much too early, given that the sun angle relative to this face was 13 degrees:
We should expect to see these carry-over errors, since this is an attempt at forging a forgery. They are unable to correct the errors of the original forgery, since doing that would present inconsistencies, thus invalidating both. Of course, invalidating both generations of these videos is the very purpose of this article.
In summary, with every attempt to cover up these CGI’s, the truth becomes more and more evident. Similarly, with each attempt, the motivation behind their actions also becomes more evident.
The fact that nothing at all hit WTC2 is the one aspect of 9/11 that they are trying to prevent us from finding out about AT ALL COSTS, because it exposes the most lethal weapon they have at their disposal: the mainstream media.
The value of this weapon is exemplified by how much time, money, and effort they have expended in their attempts to “undo” the single FOX blooper video captured by Chopper 5.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
After reflecting upon the chain of logic I followed in order to determine the identity of this “eyewitness,” I decided it was interesting enough to present alongside the actual details of the information. In fact, it’s almost impossible for me to present the information without also explaining how I acquired it.
By slightly altering the presentation format for this installment, I hope to give readers a little insight into the way that I approach problems in general. I’ve intentionally left this installment “unfinished,” so I can offer a challenge to all comers to “fill in the blanks.” So without further ado, let’s get on with this installment.
Introduction – “Libby” Clark
“Libby” Clark offered the first “eyewitness account” of the “first plane” on WABC. Her story, at least the beginning of it, can be heard in this video.
If you clicked on the link, you may have noticed that "Libby" gives us very little information about who she is and where she was when she saw what she says she saw (she also doesn’t mention if she sells seashells by the seashore).
Approach – Establish All Known Information (regardless of importance or validity)
“Libby” defines her location as “the 33rd floor of Mercer Street.” This is an odd way for someone to describe their location, isn’t it? This is hardly enough information to pinpoint her actual location, right? Not so fast…
Trying to find a person in New York with no information is like looking for a needle in a haystack. However, if you have a street and an elevation, the simile becomes more like looking for a golf ball that you just sliced into the woods. You know the general line it went in on - you’re just not sure how far it went in.
The golf ball simile fits perfectly for me, because even when I know there isn’t a chance in hell I’m ever going to find my golf ball, I feel I’ve developed a close enough relationship with it after a few holes to warrant a courtesy drive-by search.
Lo and behold, when I look down the length of Mercer Street using Google Earth, I see only 4 buildings that look like they may have a 33rd floor:
Three of those buildings are NYU housing facilities (including the “Silver Towers” @100 & 110 Bleecker St). As luck would have it, all three of these buildings are only 32 stories high.
This leaves 300 Mercer Street as the only possible building that “Libby” could have been in if she was on the “33rd floor of Mercer Street” and had a view of the towers.
Persistence – Follow the Trail
Now that we have a location, it’s time to gather more information. We can start by having a look at the building using Virtual Earth:
In this case, there happens to be plenty of information available, since this building has its own website.
The fact that they have a doorman and a rooftop pool isn’t terribly important, but it gives us a general idea of the income required to be able to afford living there. A very helpful bit of info is the floor plan. Based on a standardized layout, we can assume that “Libby" was on the 33rd floor between units E and J:
They are also kind enough to provide us with an interactive pool view, from which we can get an idea of what “Libby” would have been able to see from her vantage point, looking to the south:
Resourcefulness – Use Every Available Tool
I decided I knew enough to perform a reverse address search. From that search (which yielded over100 results), the first thing I was able to determine was the apartment number format. After going through the entire list, there were only three names listed on the 33rd floor, (two in 33I and one in 33J). Furthermore, there was not a single “Clark” result at all.
After finding far too many Clark results for the entire city of New York and no Libby, L., Elizabeth, or E. Clark anywhere near there, I finally hit on a winning combination. Using only the last name and the street name, I came up with one result:
James Clark: [undisclosed] Mercer Street, New York, NY 10003.
Upon closer scrutiny, this address ends up being far from undisclosed. I pulled up a map of the 10003 Zip Code, and as it turns out, only the two northernmost blocks of Mercer Street fall inside the 10003 Zip Code boundaries:
300 Mercer Street is not only within these 2 blocks, it also happens to be one of the only buildings that isn’t a commercial business site or an educational institution (NYU):
Profiling – Know Your Mark (or in this case, your Clark)
That was enough for me to go searching for notable James Clark’s in New York. Based on all prior "eyewitnesses," I was looking for links to the media, financial institutions, or a law firm.
I found a couple of interesting candidates when I Googled “James Clark NY.” There is a James Clark who founded Silicon Graphics, Netscape, Healtheon (now WebMD) and myCFO. He is also on the board of Shutterfly, myCFO and DNA Sciences. This sounded promising, but after reading the actual article, I found it difficult to believe that this was the Clark I was looking for.
Another result that caught my attention was aNY Times wedding announcement. The wedding announcement result reminded me that the initial reason I was searching for James in the first place was because of his wife. Granted, this wedding announcement was back in 1993; but after taking a minute to read the jobs of everyone in both of these families, these people seem to fit the profile of some of the earlier “eyewitnesses.”
If you take a look at who Evan's sister married a few years earlier (also announced in the NY Times), it’s difficult to ignore the apparent marriage strategy of the Freehill family. All the while, from Darien, CT to the Big Apple - daddy’s law firm continued its rise to prominence.
Here’s where I’m really deviating from the norm. All I have presented here is half a story. I’ve been so impressed by the follow-up work that’s been done by others after some of these articles (most notable is Fred’s follow-up on Richard Davis and Bessemer Trust) that I’ve decided to go interactive with this installment.
I’ve set up a temporary hotmail address where I’ll be accepting YOUR analyses and conclusions with regard to “Libby” Clark. Please submit your research to LibbyClarkSubmissions@hotmail.com.
My half story is missing some critical information/validation, including:
Is “Libby” really Evan Marie Clark (nee Freehill), who seemingly changed her name to Evan F. Clark in 2001?
Where exactly was she?
What doesn’t make sense about her “eyewitness account?”
Did she lie about feeling/seeing a plane on behalf of her husband, her father, or do you think she acted alone?
Why would anyone name their child Siobahn?
(That last tidbit, complete with Evan’s e-mail address, comes from here)
I’ve set the pins up, and I’m asking you to knock them down. I have nothing to reward you with but credit and praise (and maybe some podcast airtime). If you believe in my approach, I should hope that would be enough. I will post the winning submission on January 1, 2007, in addition to presenting any unique viewpoints I come across in your e-mails.
If I don’t get any submissions, I guess I’ll just have to finish the article myself. At the very least, this should free me up to format and publish my list.
I don’t plan on posting much (if any) new material until 2007. Of course, I can’t guarantee that I won’t stumble upon an irresistible story in the meantime, but I’ll be doing my best to enjoy the holidays.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
First off, I want to apologize for promising in my last article that this article would include my "eyewitness" list. Due to the rate at which I’m unearthing information about these individuals, I’ve decided to keep this list close to my vest for the time being. Hopefully, after reading this article, you’ll understand why I’ve decided to keep these names under wraps until I’ve had the chance to do my diggin’ (I don’t want “breadcrumbs” disappearing from the web before I have the chance to find them).
Kai Simonsen is the FOX News "reporter" who was reportedly inside Chopper 5 at the time of the “second impact.” I downloaded the footage that mentions Kai from 911 Chronology - Source Material (approximate VRTs 21:25 and 23:20). I'm currently working on creating a multipurpose excerpt for YouTube, but for now, I guess you'll have to either go there yourself or take my word for it.
UPDATE: There is already a YouTube video in existence that includes FOX News tapping into Kai's feed. For some reason, the audio has been turned down the first time Kai comes on at 15:30 Video Run Time (VRT). This is not the case in the 9/11 Chronology video. Kai comes on again in the YouTube video at 17:25 VRT.
Analysis – The Kai Simonsen Interview
(Click photo to read interview)
Aside from the fact that this article contains countless spelling errors and some of the longest sentences I’ve ever read in my life, there are a couple of interesting things that Kai mentions.
First of all, he says that he had just landed in Caldwell, NJ when he received a text message about the “first impact.” Then he says that shortly thereafter, they took off again and headed for the towers. As the crow flies, it’s about 20 miles from Caldwell to the towers. Yet we can see from this video that Chopper 5 is barely moving as it films from several miles away. In fact, it is actually moving sideways faster than it is approaching the towers.
No matter what time they actually launched, this scenario doesn’t make any sense. If they launched only 5 minutes after the “first impact,” then it took them 13 minutes to travel approximately 13 miles. So why would they slow down from 60mph to less than 10mph (and not even toward the towers) while they were still several miles away?
Furthermore, who was controlling the zoom factor of the camera? And why would that person choose to zoom in when they did? Of course, the second question is moot, since we now know that the purpose of this zoom was to provide us with an unmistakable image of a “plane.”
Skipping over the absurd “sightseeing pilot” comment, I will make a note for later about the obviously false statement that he was “up there for a few hours.” His reference to a fellow FOX reporter who was “hiding inside one of the trucks,” is also noteworthy.
Analysis – Kai Drops Some Breadcrumbs?
After reading this interview, I moved on to the second page of Google results for Kai Simonsen. Dated December 19, 2001 – this is what I found (click on the image for the actual link):
Amazing, isn’t it? Everything you need to create your very own media hoax, all in one place! They even have a green screen! I wonder if this was the same studio that is currently for rent at 28 Warren Street.
After noticing that he had two posts in that forum, I dug up the second as well:
FYI, the mandy.com link is dead, as is the second link (although the sundialproductions.com website is alive and well). Whether Kai feels he was in the clear at that point or whether he felt guilty and started dropping "breadcrumbs," I don’t know. If anyone cares to ask him, you might want to do it quickly, before he suddenly has an "accident" or a "heart attack."
I’m not sure whether that phone number is still valid, so you may want to try contacting him at his current company.
Even though the mandy.com link is dead, I’m going to add that “kai005” page name to my notes.
UPDATE: I figured they might kill both of Kai's links associated with the screenshots above, so I saved them before I posted this article. Great thanks to Webfairy for allowing me to store them on her site.
Second Kai Ad
Analysis – Kai Hits the Streets?
Back in my Don Dahler installment, I pointed out how Rick Leventhal beckoned his crew to the intersection of Warren and Church. His exact words were “come over this way, Pat. (Five?), Bill - we can see the top of the building from here.”
According to this foxnews.com article (halfway down the page):
The FOX News truck, parked on Church Street between Duane and Reade, became a home-in-hell for the New York bureau, which was all-hands-on-deck for the cataclysm. Producers Carlos Van Meek, Kendall Gastelu, Ian Rafferty, Anne Woolsey and Katie Sargent teamed with shooters like Pat Butler, Don Collopy, Scott Wilder and Mike Fagan to ensure viewers saw the devastation in all its ghastly reality.
Aside from placing the truck 2 blocks north of its actual location (did they have 2 trucks?), who else besides Pat Butler could Rick Leventhal have been talking to? I don’t see a "Bill" on that list, and of course, there’s no “Five” either.
If someone held a gun to my head and made me guess, I’d say that “Bill” (maybe Phil?) is this guy, who they picked up sometime after WTC1 “collapsed:”
Here, we have yet another clear case of the media interviewing… the media. Of course, we later see this “eyewitness” handling cable and running up and down the street just prior to the second collapse.
If you kept the gun to my head and demanded that I guess who “Five” was, I’d have to guess it was Kai Simonsen. This guess would be based on the dead Kai005 link on mandy.com, the fact that he was associated with Chopper 5, the fact that he mentions the truck that Pat Butler and Rick Leventhal were "hiding" in, and the assumption that there would have been no need for his “special talents” in the air after they got their “impact” shot (if he was even needed in the air at all).
The last time FOX News taps into Kai Simonsen’s feed on WNYW is at 9:12AM. Rick Leventhal is beckoning “Five” at 10:28AM.
What do you suppose Don Dahler/”Jim Friedl” would have said to Chopper 5 when he hailed it from his radio after they botched that shot? Does “I want to see you in my office,” or something to that effect sound logical? Landing Chopper 5 on one of the nearby rooftops (perhaps on a building covered in tarp?) is far more efficient than going back to Caldwell, New Jersey (if they really did launch from there).
Remember, this is pure speculation on account of the hypothetical gun to my head. I’m more than willing to hear alternative guesses as to who else “Five” may be.
I find it interesting that I was only able to find one story about Kai Simonsen's experiences with regard to 9/11. Given his vantage point, you’d think his name would be all over television and the internet immediately following 9/11. Instead, I can't find a single reference to him in any mainstream media article or story after 9/11.
Wikipedia lists Kai only as one of WNYW's “reporters.” However, if you read his bio at WNYW's website and take a look at his present and past businesses, you will quickly understand that he is much more than just a reporter.
Without taking the time to ask him, we can never be sure whether those forum posts were legitimate ads or whether he was trying to leave us clues intentionally. For instance, is he trying to tell us that Sundial Productions produced the CGI’s in all of these “amateur” videos?
Regardless of his intent, there is no doubt in my mind that Kai Simonsen played a key role in the media hoax aspect of 9/11.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Don Dahler is the ABC correspondent who is probably best known for his role in this “Reporter Didn’t See Plane” video clip.
I used this clip about a month ago at 911blogger when asked to provide an eyewitness who didn’t see a plane. However, until I started working on this series of articles, I’d never had a chance to review the rest of the available ABC footage.
When I first saw and heard that clip a couple of months ago, I naively believed that Don Dahler was just an innocent reporter caught up in the day’s events. However, while reviewing some more ABC footage, I came across something that quickly changed my mind.
Analysis – Don Dahler Blows his Cover
The following exchange between Don Dahler and Peter Jennings occurs shortly after the south tower collapse (footage available here, VRT 3:00 – 4:52):
Now this is what it looked like moments ago... My gosh.
The southern .. tower ... 10 o'clock eastern time this morning,just collapsing on itself.
This is a place where thousands of people work. We have no idea what caused this.
Um ..If you wish to bring ah .. 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 .. at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down.
What appeared to happen from my vantage point .. the top part of the building was totally involved in fire, and there was .. 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 that it just .. 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 the top.
There was no explosion or anything at the base part of it, but I .. I did see that the top part of it started to collapse, the walls started to bulge out, bricks, glass, things coming out, and then it collapsed in on itself, and it appeared to just fold down from there, from the very top.
Thanks, Don, very much.
Um, just looking at that, I don't know why, but I'm .. when was the last time the United States was attacked in this manner - it was Pearl Harbor in 1941.
Notice how Don immediately jumps in to refute Peter’s speculation of demolition, in spite of the fact that he’s just admitted that he can’t see the base of the towers. How can he be so sure that there was no explosion when he clearly was in no position to see it?
By virtue of this one exchange, Don blew the doors off the cover that had been so carefully crafted up to that point. I find it incredibly ironic that his credibility was destroyed in concert with the destruction of WTC2.
Analysis – Don Dahler’s Location
Since Don was kind enough to reveal his “perpiness” (figured I’d better coin that word before Stephen Colbert beat me to it), I decided to put him under the same microscope I’d used in the first three installments of this series.
According to all reports, Don Dahler spent the entire morning reporting from his 3rd floor loft, 4 blocks away from the towers. This vantage point afforded him with a view of, according to his own words, only the top half of the south tower.
Just after the “collapse” of the south tower, he also states that he is observing “thousands of people running up Church Street, which is what I’m looking out on.”
This statement gave me enough information to pinpoint what he claims to be his exact location. Don says he is four blocks north of the towers, which would place him on Warren Street. For him to be “looking out on” Church Street from his location, he must have been very close to it.
Because he was only three floors up and inside at that time, he’d pretty much have to be right at the corner of Church Street, otherwise his view of Church Street would have been obscured by other buildings in his way. We also know that he was in a loft with a fire escape on the south side of the building.
In this case, Google Earth wasn’t that much help to me, since I wasn’t able to view the area at a high enough resolution. However, it did provide me with the general address range I was looking for. Switching to a general address search, I discovered the following photo of the building at 28 Warren Street:
This is the former Millers Falls Company office. According to this website, it was sold in 1962 after Millers Fall merged with Ingersoll Rand (I’m still digging to find out who currently owns this property).
I was actually able to acquire an excellent quality aerial image of this location using Virtual Earth:
As I was searching for additional background on this address, I also found this New York Times article, dated December 9, 1984 - which states (2/3 down, page 1):
“In Manhattan, commercial condominiums have been or are being offered in converted space in numerous buildings, including 583 Broadway, 599 Broadway and 28 Warren Street.”
Analysis – Church St. & Warren St.: The “Hot Corner”
There was quite a lot of activity going on at this particular intersection that day. In addition to Don Dahler reporting from there, Rick Leventhal of FOX News and his crew had parked their van right across the street from Dahler’s loft on the opposite side of Church St.
This is not necessarily common knowledge. In order to determine the location of the FOX News van, I compared the footage from their camera (click on link about 1/3 down the page, titled “10:28AM”) with a different angle of 28 Warren St. from Virtual Earth (using arched windows as reference):
Although the news van was parked about a half a block south of Don Dahler’s location, you’ll notice from the source footage of the WTC1 “collapse” that most of the filming was taken from the intersection of Church and Warren. In fact, as they move toward Don Dahler’s location, you can even hear Rick telling Fox engineer Pat Butler: “come over this way, Pat. (Five?), Bill - we can see the top of the building from here.”
Strange, isn’t it – how they seem to know exactly when the second tower was going to come down?
But wait - there’s even more going on near this corner than just a media reunion. Did you happen to notice that building under construction on the East side of Church Street from the FOX News video? That’s the building directly south of Don’s loft and right across from the FOX News van.
If it looks familiar at all, maybe this photo will help to jog your memory:
Did that help? That’s the corner of Murray and Church, half a block north of the FOX satellite van. What I really find interesting is that there is no footage showing any reference made to this engine by the FOX News crew until after the south tower had “collapsed” (the owner of this site refers to this area as “Spook Central”).
You’d think they would have seen that engine earlier, perhaps considered it newsworthy, and taken some video footage of it. After all, according to Leventhal’s story, he arrived shortly after the “second impact.” Of course, for them to film it, the engine would have to have actually been there at that time.
I personally believe that all “pictures” that show this engine “being there” before the WTC2 was destroyed are doctored.
Of course, I can’t be certain of this, but perhaps the owner of this “Mystery Van” may have some idea of exactly how and when this engine arrived at the corner:
To me, it looks like that could be a heavy duty jib boom rig up on the roof of that van. Let’s just call it speculative food for thought and move on, shall we?
Analysis - Stacking the Coincidences
Let’s take a quick minute here to review. In the span of just this one block, we have ABC, FOX, NYPD, and the FBI. We have a “Mystery Van.” We have an entire block of building surrounded by scaffolding, and completely shrouded by tarp above the first floor (can somebody tell me what purpose a tarp that’s at least 10 feet away from the outside of the building could possibly serve?).
Also, we have the clean “Tonka Truck” of Ladder Company 124 (from 7 miles away in Brooklyn) which shows up between the time of the two “collapses” and parks at the corner of Murray and Church. Why would they stop there? And who exactly were they talking to on the street before they parked?
(source footage, top of linked page)
Anyway, back to Don Dahler. There’s an occurrence that I just can’t seem to let go of, if for no other reason than the strikingly low odds of it being a coincidence.
Analysis – The Don Dahler / “Jim Friedl” Connection
At the very beginning of the “Reporter Didn’t See Plane” clip, we hear a radio beep while Don is talking on the phone. I believed that the source of this radio beep was from Don’s feed, as opposed to anything else in the studio. Due to the volume of the beep, I also believe that it was in Don’s possession.
Going way back to my “Jim Friedl” analysis, bear with me as I excerpt an entire section of that article (entitled “Questions About “Jim Friedl”) that I deemed to be relevant here.
That analysis has been lodged in the back of my brain since I wrote it and ultimately led me to start considering whether Don Dahler was the same person as “Jim Friedl.” I’ve highlighted the key elements in blue below:
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.
Analysis – More Evidence Supporting the Dahler / ”Friedl” Connection
Before you get ready to declare me officially insane, have a look at the following timeline of when Don Dahler is speaking on ABC and “Jim Friedl” is speaking on FOX:
Not only do the times stack up neatly, there also appears to be no particular reason for Don’s absence on ABC’s air. Surely, anything Don would have had to say would have been much more interesting than the “filler material” that Gibson and Sawyer are spewing while he’s “away.”
Clearly, we should now have enough circumstantial evidence to have a quick listen to their voices:
Voice of Don Dahler (source footage here)
Voice of “Jim Friedl” (source footage here)
Besides being one hell of a smoking gun, this theory opens up the possibility that Don Dahler could have been doing more than just reporting on the events of the day. He may also have been orchestrating the events of the day.
Radios can beep regardless of whether the call is incoming or outgoing. What if the beep was outgoing? What if all the people on that particular radio channel could now hear what Don was saying on the air? Couldn’t that be used as an audio cue for the CGI’s to appear?
The time between the radio beep and the explosion is 15 seconds. There is no “live” footage out there that shows the plane appearing prior to this radio beep. Because of the fact that most of these angles show the plane “disappearing” behind the towers, there was an allowable margin of error inherent in those angles.
I can’t even count the number of times I’ve been scrolling through frames of these videos, thinking “damn, why hasn’t the building exploded yet?” The answer to that question may be that the CGI in the video I was analyzing at the time was initiated early.
If you start recording the times between the CGI’s disappearance behind the towers and the “exit face” explosion, these values represent that margin of error. The angle with the least margin of error just happened to be WNYW, or as I prefer to call it, blooper central.
If you read this ABC Nightline Bio of Don Dahler, you’ll see some pretty incredible claims about the “missions” he’s been on. I’ve excerpted three of these below:
1.) “Dahler was among the first American journalists to enter Afghanistan prior to U.S. military action against the Taliban regime.”
2.) “In the summer of 2002, Dahler, a Nightline producer, and camera crew, slipped across the Syrian border into northern Iraq for a series of exclusive reports on the Kurds.”
3.) “Dahler covered the war in Iraq as an embedded journalist with the 101st Airborne, traveling and living with the Army soldiers, going on foot-patrols and aerial assaults alongside the front-line troops.”
If he truly is “Grade (E)9” (Sergeant Major or Command Sergeant Major in the Army), these “missions” wouldn’t seem to be much of a stretch, would they?
I fully expect to hear some interesting rebuttals with regard to the theory of Don Dahler being the same person as “Jim Friedl.” However, before commenting, remember that the fundamental basis behind this particular speculation goes beyond the ridiculously low odds of the timing sequence being coincidental.
Also keep in mind that the included timeline only takes actual speaking time into account. When considering the introductions offered by the anchors, the time lapse between switching identities gets even smaller, giving him just enough time to say something like: “Okay, put me back on.”
In addition to all of the circumstantial evidence, this theory is also backed by the closely matching audio files.
What are the odds that two different people with seemingly identical voices:
i.) Never speak at the exactly same time
ii.) Have the same stutter when they’re faced with the letter “I”
iii.) Say the word “building” (amongst other words) exactly the same way
iv.) Just happen to be pushing the same “debris coming out the other side” line?
An “expert” voice analysis should eliminate the miniscule chance that Don Dahler isn’t “Jim Friedl.”
Regardless of that outcome, the fact remains that Don Dahler exposed his “perpiness” when he attempted to overrule Peter Jennings about what may have caused the “collapse” of WTC2.
What he says that he didn’t see (either “plane”) isn’t as important as what he says that he did see (and hear). By describing a "missile sound," he was propagating the notion of "confused witnesses." Keep in mind that as a perp, he knew that the instant we saw the WTC2 CGI on television, we'll all be convinced they were both planes - so why would he need to say he saw either “plane?”
Claiming to have not seen either plane accomplishes two things:
1.) It protects him from discovery if proof ever arises that there were no planes.
2.) It dissociates him from "Jim Friedl," breaking the natural logic barrier that has prevented anyone from even considering this theory before.
This realization has opened up my mind to another critical element of the entire media hoax. Up to this point, I’ve been incorrectly assuming that witnesses who claimed they never saw either plane were “innocent.” I now believe that every single “eyewitness” (whether they say they saw a plane or not) was presenting scripted material.
This includes Winston Mitchell, whom I previously believed was a real “eyewitness” without a motive. After looking into his background a bit, I learned that Winston Mitchell is both a television and magazine producer.
My Don Dahler analysis eventually led me to ask myself this very critical question: Would they risk having any REAL eyewitnesses on the phone at all?
The answer to this question is simply that they wouldn’t. Placing yourself in the perps’ shoes, wouldn’t you want to be in total control of what the public was being fed?
Notice that although both Winston and Don claim to have not seen the plane, they quickly change their tune after being overruled via television. Remember how easily Winston was influenced by Steve Bartelstein from this CNN footage (VRT 2:25 to 3:10)?
After paying closer attention to Winston’s words, I realized that he doesn't even seem to notice that it's not the same tower that was hit, which means WTC1 would have been blocking his view of the explosion’s origin. Logically, that would place him pretty much due north of WTC1, probably on or near West St. One problem: there aren't any delis near there for him to have "ducked into." Every deli I can find is to the east of the towers.
When you look at it from the perspective of what the media was trying to accomplish, it’s really not that difficult of a concept to grasp. Their first goal was to appear confused, which included the airing of witnesses who propagated various possibilities that still exist to this day.
Winston Mitchell “kinda sorta” saw the “first plane.” Don Dahler heard a “missile.” “Jeanne Yurman” felt a “sonic boom” and her TV flickered. What do they all have in common? None of them are saying anything absolute.
Imagine if a real eyewitness had been allowed on the air who swore up and down that there was no plane? It is for that reason that I firmly believe that both of these attacks were completely silent. If any sound had preceded the explosions, thousands of potential real eyewitnesses would have had a reason to look up. That would have resulted in many more people who would have been sure that there was no plane. If anything, a distraction may have been planned on the ground, and AWAY from the towers.
By this logic, we should be able to conclude that any jet engine noise included with any “impact” video has been dubbed into the footage.Teaser
I’ll close with a teaser photo from an upcoming analysis before my next article, which will be an attempt to list all “eyewitnesses” who had anything at all to say (on television) about something they saw or heard at the WTC attack site.
Because the “What We Saw” video (Bob and Bri) wasn’t released until this year, I can’t really include it within this series, but I can assure you – that video, released on 9/11/06, has “perp-fingerprints” all over it.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Now let’s move on to our next “eyewitness,” Richard Davis. Mr. Davis was supposedly in his office on the 39th floor of a building at or near 50th Street and 5th Avenue. This general location is commonly known as Rockefeller Plaza. Due to there being a number of buildings at least that tall in the immediate area, it was difficult to determine exactly which one Richard was in.
However, it is precisely this factor which makes his eyewitness account suspect. Richard speaks as though he has a clear view of the World Trade Center from his vantage point on the 39th floor of his building. This eliminates almost every building in Rockefeller Plaza, since there are many tall buildings which would obscure his view.
Without actually going to New York myself and looking for myself, my best guess (based on Google Earth) was that Richard Davis was either at 30 Rockefeller Center (GE building) or 630 5th Avenue (International Building).
After doing a little digging, I discovered that there is a Richard R. Davis that works at Bessemer Trust Company NA, which just so happens to operate out of the International Building. This Richard R. Davis holds degrees from both Columbia (MBA) and Yale (LLB). He currently serves as Bessemer’s Managing Director, Secretary and General Counsel.
As it turns out, Bessemer has a very prestigious client base. They proudly proclaim to manage over 46 billion dollars for only 1800 clients. 92% of these clients are individuals, accounting for almost 42 billion dollars. A little math tells us that the average individual client is entrusting Bessemer with 25 million dollars.
After a little more digging, I found out there just happens to be a Richard R. Davis living at 1185 Park Avenue in New York.
Now it’s not every day that you Google somebody’s home address and find out there’s been a book written about it. Granted, this guy doesn’t have the whole place to himself. According to this website, it’s been broken down into about 185 apartments, although this website says there are only 167 apartments.
FYI, if you’re interested in living here, you’re in luck! A three bedroom space appears to be available for just $3.75 million.
Now, before I actually get into my analysis of what Richard told Bryant Gumbel, I want to be clear that up to this point, I have presented you with information about two Richard R. Davis’ who may or may not be the same person. Even if this is the same person, I also haven’t provided a solid link to Richard Davis, the lying “eyewitness.”
Analysis – Keeping up with the Davis’
I suppose if one were interested enough, one could check out the lobby of the International Building to see if Bessemer is located on the 39th floor. I suppose one could also call Bessemer and ask to speak to Richard R. Davis to determine whether his voice matches the voice from the CBS interview, if one were so inclined to connect the dots.
OR – if these options sound like too much work, I suppose one could Google “Bessemer 39th Floor” and retrieve this SEC document or an earlier one, from which I’ve excerpted the following text:
I suppose after verifying that, one could skip the step of actually talking to Richard at work by simply checking out the outgoing message on his answering machine at home.
I have offered this audio as an alternative to inciting the harassment of Mr. Davis, by way of relieving you of the temptation to call the publicly-listed number yourselves. My research was conducted only for the purpose of identification. I am now satisfied that the “eyewitness” who called CBS, the executive at Bessemer Trust, and the individual living on Park Avenue are actually one and the same person – Mr. Richard R. Davis.
With my curiosity now quelled, I can now get on with the task of analyzing the actual “eyewitness account” of Richard R. Davis.
Analysis – Richard R. Davis’ “Eyewitness Account”
From the same video as the last installment, the “eyewitness account” of Richard R. Davis can be heard from 6:10 until about 9:00 Video Run Time (VRT).
Once again, the keyword “deliberate” is being employed by an “eyewitness.” By this point, I can only speculate that this keyword was designed to help bridge the gap between an “accident” and a “terrorist attack.”
Mr. Davis was much better prepared for Bryant’s “Why do you say it was deliberate?” question than was “Theresa Renault.” From his vantage point 0.8 miles behind the “plane,” he was apparently able to conduct a maintenance evaluation as it flew the remaining 3 miles or so away from him (at an approximate rate of 500mph) until it “struck” WTC1.
Right about now is where my recent anonymous comment posters (BG & Fred) are probably starting to get excited about pushing the prospect of an old man getting his “planes” mixed up. After all, this guy could have easily lost track of the “737” he says he saw once it got 4 miles away.
While it is believable that Richard could have identified a “two-engine jet” from 0.8 miles away, it is not believable that he could determine that there was nothing wrong with it. It is also questionable as to whether he could have still seen it from 4 miles away.
However, once again, I really don’t care about the “first plane” anyway. What makes Richard’s “eyewitness account” so impossible are his statements about the “second plane.” At about 7:50 VRT, Richard declares “We saw the second one come up the Hudson and veer into the second building.”
This is truly amazing. Not only were these people able to spot the “second plane” coming toward them from over 4 miles away (remember the 16ft fuselage diameter), once again Richard was able to determine with great certainty that “there appeared to be nothing wrong with the aircraft” and that “it was flown very deliberately into the building.” These statements are absolute hokum. He may as well have stated that he saw the pilot giving him the finger (too bad - that would have saved me the trouble).
I’d be curious to have a gander out the window from Richard’s office myself. I wonder exactly how much of his view of the towers would have been obscured by the Empire State Building (or any other buildings for that matter).
Unlike Rose Arce, Richard Davis doesn’t appear to be lying about where he was on September 11, 2001.
However, due to the fact that there was no plane in the area for Richard to see from his window (proven in “Pinocchio: Part II” article), I have no choice but to conclude that he is lying about seeing the “second plane.” This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that even if there had been a plane in the air, it is a ridiculous notion that he would have been able to both spot it and characterize its behavior from over 4 miles away.
If he lied about seeing the “second plane,” how much of a stretch do you suppose it would be to believe he also lied about seeing the “first plane?” While considering this, take into account that due to its proximity to him, the Empire State Building should have obscured much more than it appears to in the the Google Earth image above. His actual view would be much better represented by the image below:
This vantage point would have hindered him from tracking the "first plane," as he claims to have first "noticed" it "by the time it was passing the Empire State Building."
As far as how close Richard Davis’ relationship is to the “9/11 planners,” I’ll leave that up to you to decide for yourselves. I’m guessing he knows quite a bit more than your average 9/11 stooge.
Of course, albeit educated – my “guess” is useless without subpoena power. Can I get a show of hands for any takers?
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Since I first published this article, it has been divulged to me by Joe Craine (see comments below) that this witness is actually Theresa Renaud, the wife of CBS Early Show producer, Jack Renaud. The source of this information is this CBS News article. Thanks, Joe!
Introduction - "Theresa Renault"
“Theresa Renault” was being interviewed by Bryant Gumbel on CBS at the time of the “second impact.” “Theresa” is explaining to Bryant that she both saw and heard the first explosion at WTC1, although she never actually saw any plane. My searches for Teresa/Theresa Renault in the downtown Manhattan area have come up empty, as the closest I’ve come is Theresa M. Renault, almost 90 miles away in New Paltz, NY.
Analysis – "Theresa Renault’s Eyewitness Account”
“Theresa” claims to have been inside her office at 8th Avenue and 16th Street in Chelsea. According to her, she works in “the tallest building in the area.” According to Google Earth, this places her inside the building at 111 8th Avenue.
This building has a fascinating history, to go along with its equally intriguing tenant list, which also now includes Google (Update: tenant list includes Deutsch Advertising, where Theresa was a vice president).
Almost as fascinating: once again we have a witness claiming to have heard a “very loud” explosion while indoors from over 2 miles away.
Of course, this pales in comparison to what she claims to have been able to observe from her vantage point looking south toward the towers. “Theresa’s eyewitness account” can be heard from 1:40 to 5:40 Video Run Time (VRT) of the following video:
Notice how quickly "Theresa" reacts to the second explosion and declares that she saw “another plane.” Keep in mind that she is looking at the towers from the north, and that she’s over 2 miles away.
From that angle and distance (if her view wasn’t blocked by buildings), the “plane” would have been difficult to see at best. Yet we are expected to believe that she saw an object that would have been essentially only 16 feet tall from over 2 miles away, and recognized it as a plane.
Remember, she’s supposedly looking out of her office window, without the aid of any camera zoom lens. Right about now is where all my questions start again:
If she saw "a plane" so clearly, why doesn’t she react until after the fireball?
How could she see “a plane” fly into the south face of WTC2 when she was over 2 miles away to the north?
Who is telling her what to say at 3:14 VRT?
Right after this, when she says “and right now… that… yes… that was definitely looked like it was on purpose,” is she watching a video replay only 24 seconds after the explosion?
If so, what station is she watching? The earliest replay I found to be shown by any network was at ABC, 54 seconds after the “live” footage was shown. Did she have a TiVo unit in her office? Oh wait, those didn’t come out until 2003. So what was the cause of her hesitation?
Getting back to that angle and distance for a second, let's take a quick look at "Theresa's" view from Google Earth:
Okay, this is my last try. I zoomed-in from the roof, added WTC7 for reference, and placed it side-by-side with the stock screenshot:
Of course, it's not perfect and the aspect ratio is a little off - but it sure is close. The building spans an entire block too, so the angle could be slightly different - depending on where they may have placed the cameras.
BTW, if you didn't read the entire history link, here's an excerpt from it that may be relevant:
"Fascinating tidbit: 111 8th Avenue used to be an old media headquarters"
Sorry for that little aside - I thought it was worth mentioning. Now back to "Theresa's eyewitness account:"
As much flack as Bryant Gumbel has taken for his inability put things together as quickly as the rest of the media anchors, he asks “Theresa” a very good question: “Why do you say that was definitely on purpose?”
This “answer” was the best she could do: “It’s because… it just… it just flew straight into it. There’s not… it didn’t look like it was… ah… and it didn’t look like a commercial jet. It was a smaller plane. It was definitely a smaller plane.”
This is clearly not an “eyewitness” answering a question. This is an example of a woman being instructed what to say.
Perhaps the most telling quote of all: “It hit another building… flew right into the middle of it! Explosion!”
I can clearly picture the guy holding up the “Explosion” cue card in my mind’s eye. Either that or she realized that she forgot that she was supposed to say that word earlier. People just don’t talk like that… but they do they read like that.
“Theresa Renault” did not see a plane crash into WTC2 through her office window. If she did see a “plane,” she saw the “live” CGI insertion on TV – just like the rest of us who weren’t there.
In my opinion, it could not be more obvious that she had people with her to “help” her answer Bryant Gumbel’s questions.
I was pleasantly surprised at how well Bryant did his job on that day, in spite of his apparent vision issues. I suppose I should also make the point that Daryn Kagan (from my previous article) was also asking meaningful and intelligent questions over at CNN. Unfortunately, the only information Rose Arce was able to provide (from wherever she was) was a traffic report.
This indicates to me that not all media personnel were aware of the hoax at the time. Of course, unless they live in a cave, they must surely know the truth by now.
Just to clarify, “Theresa Renault” is the first “eyewitness” I've analyzed in this series who lied on 9/11/01 about seeing a plane (Rose Arce didn’t lie about that until CNN’s tribute DVD was recorded).
Based on the timing of her statement “and right now… that… yes… that was definitely looked like it was on purpose,” I'm guessing she really was looking at a replay before any of us could. This would make perfect sense if she were right next to the equipment they were using to review the replay before approving it for rebroadcast.
It's a shame that I haven't been able to identify who "Theresa Renault" really is, and who she was working for at the time. After her "performance," I'd be surprised if she's still alive today. As bad as it was, they may have thrown her off the roof as soon as she hung up the phone.
Based on the next “eyewitness” I will be presenting, you may begin to notice a pattern with regard to where these “eyewitnesses” were calling from. If you skipped over the building history and tenant list links I provided earlier, you may want to go back and have a look.
I’m sure there’s much more information on that building than what I’ve posted, so feel free to dig deeper if you find yourself to be intrigued. I'd also appreciate any ideas with regard to "Theresa's" identity. The only other spelling of the last name I can think of is "Reno," and I came up empty on that one as well.
Update: Currently researching Theresa Renaud. Is this potentially the same individual who is currently a marketing director at Summit Systems Inc. since 2001. Strangely, Zoominfo seems to indicate that she's a Senior VP at CBS (then again, Zoominfo also lists Jack Renaud as working for Deutsch Advertising).
Deutsch Advertising founder? Donny Deutsch. Donny interviewed Jim Fetzer in August, 2006 - no mention of Theresa Renaud. YouTube video of interview has been removed.
Donny sold Deutsch Advertising to IPG in 2000, according to Wikipedia.
Is this the same Theresa Renaud?
Friday, December 01, 2006
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.
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?
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 “
“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.