9-11 Witnesses

9-11.jpg

This horrible day in NYC, and then, the world.

You know, I never wanted to look into this, but friends kept bringing it up, so I did…and it’s true that the 9-11 commission suppressed the testimony of firefighters, EMT’s, police, citizen civilians, all reporting the same thing…

911 Witness Testimony: Here and Here

I didn’t know this until recently. Bothers me awfully.

—————————————————–

Liam

16 Comments

  1. Have you ever seen 911 the plane truth? documentary..
    It critiques the pentagon building plane theory purported by the mainstream news and refuted by eyewitnesses and anyone with else that looks into it with a critical eye.. this kind of stuff makes me want to believe in David Icke! But I don’t…

  2. David Icke is real, not imaginary.

    Anyway, Mr. Icke doesn’t ask that anybody ‘believe’ in him, although, I do.

    I certainly can’t go with everything he says, but I don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to him.

  3. Why did you never want to look into this? Too disturbing to imagine? Social/career reasons?

    I personally think it’s pretty much a waste of time to invest energy into that issue since no one will agree to re-investigate in the near future probably. It still makes sense to talk about it though.

  4. Why?

    Honestly, I was just trying not to be a big chicken. It’s a difficult subject for me, pushes a lot of buttons. I’ve been swayed by emotion – I’ve had a stubborn bias against investigating this too deeply; it unnerves me, upsets me. It’s emotional – I have not wanted to entertain the darker, or more conspiratorial notions about these incidents. It bothers me greatly. I don’t like to think that these actions… well… I don’t even like talking about it.

    So, I haven’t wanted to delve too deeply. I suppose I didn’t want to have to deal with what I might find. I’ve certainly been occupied with other controversies, and then, there’s the emotional aspect. I just find it so offensive to think that anyone could have participated in any way in this horrible event, willingly…

    But, I’ve had to pull my head out of the sand here, because it’s not really my nature to shy away from hard questions. I’ve had friends and colleagues pushing on these issues for years in their own work. I’ve always asked some questions, and then recently decided I’d finally have a look through the available data, and controversy.

    There’s too much there to unspool easily, quickly or definitively; what struck me most, (after the crazy-collapse of buildings, unprecedented and ne’er repeated), was the suppression of on-site witnesses – Police, Firefighters, EMTs, Office workers, Citizens.

    Suppression of evidence is evidence, and to the degree that immediate, pertinent, relevant and essential information is kept out of the official version, the official version becomes dishonest, misleading, and maybe purposely so.

    So… still looking into it. But look at what’s suppressed, and who is suppressing it. That tells you a great deal about the greater story.

  5. My patent office was just 5 blocks east from the Pentagon on 9/11/01. Our administrative assistant was driving toward the Pentagon, just having crossed the 14th St. Bridge over the Potomac River (heading south). She saw the 767 swooping in low and lower over U.S. 295 that she was about to exit, saw it smash into the Pentagon at tremendous speed.

    Also, a friend who owns an electrical company doing refurbishing of the Pentagon had a crew there at the exact fateful minute, and were outside taking a morning break, when the 767 came at them at 400+ miles per hour, over their heads by only a few feet, and like above, smashed into the building just a hundred feet behind them.

    There are many other first hand published accounts like this. What are people wondering about? Certainly not that a real live hijacked airliner with murderous thugs in the cockpit murdered almost 200 people, including passengers and people working at the Pentagon? You can’t be serious, or are you?

  6. Hi David,

    Pentagon isn’t in NYC, as far as I know. I certainly believe murderous thugs took over airplanes and flew them into buildings.

    But I don’t really believe the official story in full – mostly because the official story suppressed evidence of people on the scene, such as linked above in the NYT diaries.

    LS

  7. Most actual 9-11 “truthers” believe fully that a plane hit the Pentagon. Most believe that talk of cruise missiles is meant to distract from the evidence that a plane hit. But what most “truthers” believe is that the planes were remotely piloted. Several reasons are put forward for this.

    1. The hijackers named had no skills to fly a jumbo jet, let alone to pilot it like a fighter aircraft. The hit on the Pentagon was not direct. The aircraft made a turning dive, and hit the only section of the Pentagon that had undergone reinforcement. The turning dive, coupled with the fact the plane flew low enough to clip light poles in half, suggests either a highly accomplished pilot, or remote control. What few realize is that the closer a plane flies to the ground, the more the ground effects suck the plane downward. And if you are already traveling downward, this would become even more severe the closer to the ground you got. The plane is supposed to have approached the Pentagon, turned around the Pentagon roughly 270 degrees (3/4 of a circle), as it descended, flying lower and lower, clipping lamp posts and then struck the only reinforced section there was. No untrained pilot could possibly have performed this maneuver. It would be simply impossible. No amount of luck would help you.

    2. Another issue is the presence of white jumbo jets in the sky above all crash sites. These jets, viewed in numerous photos and video of that day, has the outline of a very distinctive US Air Force jet that is basically a TACAMO aircraft. This command and control aircraft is designed to command the entire military from the air. It would be THE aircraft of choice to remotely pilot aircraft with. And the fact this type of aircraft is seen near the Twin Towers and The Pentagon is not something easily explained.

    I actually wrote a piece in response to an article published by Popular Science, when they tried to debunk the “truthers”. They interviewed some Emergency Response chief from FEMA or some other agency. His job was basically to be in charge in an emergency, in New York City. Problem was, he was attending a conference in Bozeman, Montana the day of the attacks. According to his testimony and the testimony of a fighter pilot sent to retrieve him and bring him to NYC, the fighter jet took off from an air base in what I think was somewhere near Sioux City, South Dakota, flew to Bozeman, picked the expert up and flew him to NYC where he arrived around 10:30am or something.

    The problem with this story, is that even if the pilot was sitting in his fully fueled jet ready to go, engines already running when the call came in, the distance to Bozman is about 750 miles. At Mach 1, the F-16 he would be flying would take a full hour to reach Bozeman. It would also run out of fuel as the combat range of an F-16 is only about 730 miles.

    The North Tower was hit at 8:43am EST. Assuming someone got on the phone with the pilot at exactly 8:43am, he would not arrive in Bozeman until 9:43am. Assuming there was the equivalent of a NASCAR pit crew ready to refuel him upon arrival and he was fueled and ready to go within seconds, the expert boarding during the refueling, it is still more than 2,000 miles at 3 hours at Mach 1 to reach New York City. Thus they would not arrive until around 1pm. The only way the guy arrived from Bozeman at the time he did, was if he was notified before the planes actually departed Boston Logan airport, long before they slammed in to any towers.

    These would clearly be documented events. A fighter jet leaving an air base in the Dakotas would have a flight log. It’s arrival in Bozeman would have a log. It’s arrival in New York would also be logged. And both the pilot and the expert he flew gave the same story.

    Another glaring hole in the official story, rarely reported on even by “truthers” is the presence and photos, of a jet engine that survived the crash in NYC and wound up on the ground many blocks from the site. The engine is too small to have come from either a 757 or 767, and has been identified by an actual jet mechanic as belonging to a 737. Since American Airlines and United Airlines would not be mistaken in what kinds of aircraft they lost that day, how do you explain a 737 engine in NYC that day?

    The list goes on and on, but I will end with this other little tidbit, as the big stuff like controlled demolition has been done to death already and I like the little details the shoot holes in the official story. This is about cell phones.

    On 9-11, the technology did not exist to make cell phone calls from jet aircraft flying at altitudes above 7.000 feet. At the speed aircraft travel, you would move well beyond line of sight of repeaters anyway, but cell phones use repeaters and repeaters don’t point up in the sky. That is why at higher altitudes, you simply cannot make a phone call. Additionally, planes are made of carbon fiber and aluminum. Both stop cell phone signals. If you did have a signal, you’d have to be pressed up against a window, as cell phones work on line of site. It isn’t coming from all directions at once. Drive past a cell tower some time and notice there isn’t usually one antennae on it, there are several, on several facings, because they are directional. One antennae doesn’t cover an entire 360 area, it takes several, usually three or more. So you would have to be on the side of the plane where the signal is coming from, and at 500 MPH, you’d zip by that signal pretty damn fast. Whereas it has been documented that the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania had no air phones for passengers, thus nobody on board could have called friends, family or anyone else using one, cell phones would not have worked either. So how did anyone call anyone on the plane if you could not make either cell phone or air phone calls?

  8. If you look up Operation Northwoods, you will learn about a Pentagon plan back during the 60’s that involved hijacking planes full of American citizens, possibly students on trips to South America, to be used in all sorts of ways to get the United States to get behind an invasion of Cuba. Ideas considered were things like crashing the plane in to a building, having a fake Cuban aircraft shoot the American students out of the sky. Just one big “False Flag” created to get American citizens to back an agenda.

    I too have heard the theory that the original passengers and aircraft on 9-11 were flown out in to the Atlantic and sunk. It does make some sense if you feel the aircraft used that day to crash in to the World Trade Centers were remotely piloted. The passengers would have to be gotten rid of somehow. You don’t just stick some magnetic box to the side of the fuselage and whammo, remotely piloted aircraft! My only problem with this aspect of the story is why would anyone simply destroy the original aircraft? A 757 is pretty expensive. If you are going to replace it with a different aircraft designed to be remotely piloted, why not just repaint the replaced aircraft and use them elsewhere? Getting rid of the passengers doesn’t mean the hundred million dollar aircraft needs to go away too.

    But ultimately, what gets me to believe governments were directly involved is history. Governments for two thousand years have been creating false flag events to get the populace behind unpopular wars. Killing their own citizens and blaming the events on a specific enemy to enrage the people in to backing war. It is a tried and true method. I personally believe most of the “suicide bombers” over the last couple of decades, including the first one, were government operations designed to make a specific group of people look evil. There may have been legitimate copy cats later, but I think the first one and most of the subsequent ones were government orchestrated. With total control over the media, it isn’t too hard to control the “facts” of the story to have it told in a way that furthers an agenda. And exactly whose agenda does suicide bombing help most?

    If you think about it, what is the difference between strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing yourself up, and putting a bomb in a paper bag and placing it somewhere to blow up remotely? You don’t need to kill yourself to create carnage. So why would you?

    Now consider this alternate scenario. A person, maybe an Iraqi or Palestinian is stopped by occupation authorities for a long interrogation. They are stripped of their clothing to make them more vulnerable and scared, and PETN is sewn in to their clothing, much like the failed suicide bomber on Christmas recently. The authorities then tell the person they are going to be allowed to go, but they will need to stop by some specific place to fill out some paperwork first, and then they let them go. The person walks to wherever they are supposed to go and along the way, boom! Or, a bomb is placed in the trunk of their car, they drive to the destination they are told to, and along the way, boom!

    Think of this in your own life. If the police here stopped you for speeding or whatever, pulled you over, “searched” your vehicle and then came up to you and said, “Did you know you are wanted for some huge crime?” And you said, no. And they said, “Well, we believe you, but you need to go over to this police station and allow them to finger print you to verify you aren’t that person and get your name cleared. We suggest you go there now.” You’d go. But while they were searching your vehicle, they put a bomb in your trunk, would you stop to check, or just drive away to wherever you were going, or straight to the police station? Police often ask you where you are going? So they’d know if you were going some place with a lot of people. Then boom!

    If it is that easy to create a suicide bomber, or a patsy, and there is no real reason to blow yourself up when remote detonation is just as effective, why assume anyone is really doing it? Whose agenda does it serve?

    • I knew a Patsy once…not a lot of girls named Patsy anymore…

      Lee Harvey was a Patsy, but most people just called him Lee.

  9. I watched a documentary the other night on TV trying to debunk the debunkers about Lee “Patsy” Oswald. They always focus on the aspects that make it plausible he could have gotten off the shots and then narrow down where shooting from would have been a bad idea. Like from a gutter drain. They leave out that nearly every eye witness from that day died soon after in a bunch of statistically unrealistic ways, similar to how so many witnesses from 9-11 died, similar to how witnesses from the nuclear bomb mishap a few years back where supposedly six nuclear bombs were loaded on to a B-52 and five landed. Suddenly everyone dies by running in to trees on motorcycles or in their cars, or having heart attacks.

    What bugs me about these debunking shows is they always have some really well trained, super marksman, firing on a range, not at a human being. People who spend a lot of time firing guns of all varieties and are experts. Oswald had merely been in the Marine Corps. Yeah, you learn to shoot there. But he wasn’t a Marine sniper or anything. It wasn’t his day to day job. He wasn’t portrayed as being an avid hunter or gun nut. In none of the documentaries did they ever even suggest he went somewhere and practiced the assassination. And then there’s the rifle he chose to use. Probably the worst bolt-action rifle ever made. Why not buy a better one, like a Lee Enfield .303, a common sniper rifle used for decades and easly acquired?

    And consider his plan.

    He went to work carrying a rifle? I am sure it is possible nobody saw this, but it would certainly catch the eye. He didn’t work alone. There were plenty of people around. And when he fired the shots, why didn’t anyone notice a rifle being fired inside the building? Three or four times for that matter. This was Texas, not California. Maybe I am stereotyping, but I would think people in Texas would be a little more familiar with guns and gunshots. It just seems a Southern thing. Wouldn’t it be a bit loud? I’ve been to shooting ranges, you wear ear protection for a reason. And when you fire a gun, it stinks. You can smell it. Why did nobody ever claim they smelled anything? If someone fired off a gun inside your house and you were say, out in the garage or whatever, you wouldn’t notice?

    And his plan wasn’t to leave right away, use the crowds outside to vanish, but instead thought it best to go downstairs and have lunch and a soda? But then he leaves anyway, after finishing his meal?

    And then the question I always ask. Who benefits? Why would Oswald want Kennedy dead? What benefit would it really be to him? Consider the attempted assassination of Reagan in 1981. The guy who shot him knew the Bush family. I believe he was a friend of Marvin Bush, brother of George and Jeb. Bush Senior was Vice President. They say he did it to impress Jodie Foster, but when you ask who would benefit? Well, if I was VP and someone killed the Prez, I would enjoy a nice little promotion.

    You can stretch out in to all the other aspects of the story, the big stuff, try and figure out who might have done it, or if there were others involved. I try and focus on the little details first, the stuff that doesn’t add up, doesn’t make sense, doesn’t match with reality as I know it.

    • He defected to Russia. He came back to the US with an identity kit given to him by US intelligence. He was not arrested or detained! No questions asked!

      Yeah, I guess the US govt had nothing to do with it. That’s why the word “Lone gunman” is a joke in the x-files.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *