Mystery expert at ground zero

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Yesterday I went to archive.org and started to watch the Fox coverage of 9/11 that is archived there. I was trying to find the actual original footage of harley man's interview, thinking that the visual might be clearer than what has been posted as clips on YouTube etc.

Maybe I should have read the entire thread before I started watching too. Great minds think alike.

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


I remember seeing that guy and thinking, "It looks like the news reporter just asked some random person and how the hell does this random person know with all his conviction that the buildings collapsed because the fire was too intense??" I still haven't figured it out. It did seem very rehearsed and I wouldn't be surprised if he IS an actor. I'm interested to see what someone finds about him.

Something I dont understand...

When an 'expert' offers an opinion that the impact and fire would cuase a structure to collapse, based on experience (as he is paid to do by the studio, as the words "I dont know" would be rather career limiting), the response is "how does he know that, before the analysis was conducted? He couldnt, therefore he must have known in advance.. conspiracy!"

When non-experts, such as a newsman, state they heard something that "... sounded like a controlled explosion" or people state "it sounded like a bomb", its is immediately pronounced as fact!

can you see the contradiction here?

Here's two counter thoughts about this fellow.

1. He is just a guy on the street, offering his opinion. He didn't claim to be an expert, nor is he presented as an expert by the news channel. Newsies tend to select interviewees, based on how interesting they are, and/or photogenic. He would appear to be a natural choice.

2. It actually is this Riggle guy. He doesnt state who he is, or claim expert status to the journos (at least not on camera, maybe he did approach the newsies and state something along the lines of "hey, I'm a US Marine officer, and I saw it all." - gives him a bit more credibillity than joe bloggs in the street , and is the kinda thing officers say to impress... I've heard much worse!) Why not.. because he knows he shouldnt be talking to journos without prior authotisation... which would also be an incentive not to come foewards at a later date.

No, I am not a 9/11 sceptic (pro or anti... whichever is which!) so please do not automatically brand me a govt apologist. I DO beleive the US Govt is hiding something, but they didnt blow up the towers. My tuppence? Tow theories:

1. They knew in advance of the attack, but it suited a political agenda to allow it. This is kinda thin, it would be too easy for this to leak.

2. They "knew" in the sense that there was intelligence suggesting of an imminent attack, or even warning of the attack itself. This int was ignored, or dismissed. Subsequently, there is a lot of ass-covering.. at what level of responsibillty would such a cover-up be deemed necessary, obviously Presidential level, but how much lower down, I dont know. Maybe at any level, the shock on the nation being just too great to comprehend, the feeling that the nation would think "our govt has failed us", and by the time anyone stopped and said "hey, no would really hold the Govt respobnsible for a low-level failure", its just too late to stop. The crime would not be doing the deed, but being caught lying.

Or a mixure of both, certainly some large US organisations with close ties to Bush benefited. As did the US and UK adminstrations in terms of legislative policy that would never have been passed had it not been for 9/11 (and 7/7)

A conspiracy would be just too huge to contain, and the degree of risk of exposure too great.

For starters, such an operation is so large it requires detailed planning. The stress involved, the workload, would preclude people from trying to plan this "in their heads", so would require written planning. Who in their right mind would commit such an operation to paper... For me, that would be sufficient dissuasion, like trying to rob a bank without a fask mask or gloves, and leaving dns samples left right and centre. Please dont say "write it in code", that has the same drawbacks as trying to plan it in one's head.

But, because I try to keep an open mind...

Try this as an exercise: plan out how you would bring the towers down, in the way it [publicy] appeared, and how it is suggested it really happened. Detailed planning (hint, you are looking at reams of paper, all told). Now look at the logistics and people involved. Now how would you guarantee their silence. Really guarantee it.... start looking at death records.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by 24694244]

It's foolish to attack Harley Davidson guy's soundbite on the basis of "Who talks like that?" The fact is that few people will talk to a TV reporter on camera in the same way that they would talk to their friends and family. Most people will attempt to choose their words more carefully than they usually do. This can often, paradoxically, make them less effective communicators and it certainly makes them appear unnatural.

Incidentally, I do think the guy is a plant; it's just not sensible to base that suspicion on the fact that he is attempting to use impressive, formal language. Many ordinary folks try to do that when they're talking to an authority figure, whether it's a media representative, a policeman or even their boss. They try to sound more intelligent but frequently only succeed in coming over as pretentious.

It's not only on 9/11 that I've laughed at the way the man-in-the-street talks to a TV reporter and asked myself, "Who on earth talks like that in real life?"

***********

Furthermore, was that interview conducted live or was it recorded a few minutes before it was aired?
It's quite possible that the reporter had interviewed a few other people and his editors had decided that Harley Davidson guy was the most articulate and therefore aired his comment rather than someone else's.
It's also possible that the interview we see wasn't the first take. Sometimes reporters will pretend that there was a technical problem with sound or whatever so that they can give a potentially interesting interviewee a second chance to give his answer. In those circumstances, the interviewee will often rephrase his answer and be more composed on the second take. That would be a perfectly reasonable explanation for the lack of emotion in the guy's response.

All of these things are possible. I'm only bringing them up to point out that the stilted style of Harley Davidson guy's speech isn't in itself proof that he's a villain. That's not "evidence" that will convince anybody beyond a reasonable doubt.

Originally posted by 2Faced
I have taken this topic over to the LoosChange forums where I also used to hang-out a lot. I know there are a lot of people overthere who are like pitbulls when it comes to digging for facts. The more people look at this, the better we can determine if we are on the right track, or not.

Peace

Thank you kindly 2faced- you're helping with the cause more than you know. I appreciate it myself.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Actual 'free-fall' versus actual time involved....

I've been trying to view your link. I keep getting an error message. I'm low on hard drive space, but I will persist.

I know that the buildings did not fall at literal free fall speed, but when you allow 17 seconds for the collapse, each floor is only hundredths of a second slower than free fall. I usually use the phrase "near free fall speed". I think it is honest and accurate.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by Griff

SPreston said the interview was at 9:40 but he didn't say AM or PM. I'm beginning to wonder if it was in the evening. I'm going to check that out when I finish the current block I am watching.

Nice to see you in this thread Griff. It is going to be interesting to see how this turns out. I'm wondering how long it will be before the big guns, like Alex Jones and We Are Change get involved.

reply to post by 24694244
That's a reasonable take on why that guy spoke the way he did,
it's a pity we don't hear what the reporters question actually was.
I still think the interviewee was a plant by someone,this guy is the only
layperson I have heard interviewed with the straightforward answer for the collapse..which just happens to be exactly the same as the official version.
Yet,there are dozens of others who spoke of explosions,firemen,police,
ambulance and military who appear to have been totally ignored,now that IS strange.
There is even sounds of explosions on video,which are not cars petrol tanks exploding as has been said...I know what an explosion in a city sounds like,I live in Northern Ireland.
Another thing,reporters usually don't like repetition,that only makes a story boring,and they can ask an interviewee to answer only to a specific question,(so not to ramble)so again a unique reply on this mans part in
the face of everybody else talking about explosions.

reply to post by 24694244


I just wanted to make clear again to every one that Public Affairs is what Rob Riggle does in the Military. He along with his reserve unit in Manhattan were some of the first responders to the scene. Now given the fact that he was working for the city of new york, IS the public affairs correspondent for his unit who again, were FIRST RESPONDERS. He is not only qualified to speak on behalf of the military as well as the City of New York, that is what his job is in both fields of his life military and civilian.

This is his Job, a military and public affairs liaison.

As far as what he says, I honestly don't see anywhere in that broadcast where Riggle says he is an expert nor claims anything as fact. He is simply claiming what he saw, even though I do believe it is scripted and not honest. What he did is not illegal, deceptive yes, illegal no. He stated something in a factual tone, but never said it was a "fact".

It is obvious to me that he was activated back to duty the day after for a reason, to Afghanistan no less....for over 3 years!!!

We were lucky to catch this, even though Harley Guy is pretty famous and would likely have pegged a question mark for eternity, we will be awesome if we can get an answer back from his camp. I mean, we know he was there, so he won't deny that. I just find it weird that he would of never mentioned this on John Stewart or somewhere else. I mean he is saying Harley Guy/Riggle that he saw the plane. I don't know one person who saw the plane live, just tv, so I would think that would be a shining tidbit in his conversation.

I've always gotten the impression that Mr. Mystery Expert was just guessing or assuming that what he was saying was true. Don't forget: if certain theories about 9/11 that don't mesh with the Official Story are correct, it follows that those who pulled it off were trying to give just that impression. They engineered the whole affair to make it look like the Official Story they must have already had written: planes, fuel, fire, melt, collapse. So whether it was done by al Qaida or Dick Cheney, everyone, including Mystery Guy, would at first be certain that they saw just that: planes, fuel, fire, melt, collapse. Even I thought that for a few days. It wasn't until much closer examination of the videos from that day that people started saying "Hey, wait a minute..." and the Official Story started smelling like six-day-old road kill. It actually would have been more suspicious if he'd said "It's our own government! They planted thermate and blew 'em up on purpose!" don't you think? To sum up...

I think Mystery Guy is getting a bum rap, here. Even if it does turn out to have been Lt. Col. Rob Riggle (USMC) who made that statement, one cannot assume he was a plant. I imagine a lot of people said exactly the same thing at the time, just not on camera. Personally, I don't think the voices are a match, but I am not a computer. I'm simply logical.

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


When you say you don't know anyone who saw the airplanes live, well, that is probably a true statement.

Of course, I'd guess that the person holding the camera that was video-taping or filming at the time the airplanes were in the viewfinders probably 'saw' the airplanes live. At least, when I look through a viewfinder I suspect that what I see is really there.

AND, you can bet yer britches if you had a chance to interview the Air Traffic Controllers on duty in the Newark, La Guardia or Teterboro towers that day, you'd likely find some 'eye-witnesses'.

Just sayin'......

I listened to them both at least 50 times, clicking back and forth on the play buttons. I don't think it's Rob.

Something is wrong at archive.org.

I am trying to view the block of Fox coverage: Fox 5, Washington D.C.FOX5 Sept. 11, 2001 9:01 pm - 9:43 pm (September 12, 2001)

I keep getting a message. "Stream not found." I wonder if the boogie men have arrived on the scene.

Here's the link.

www.archive.org...

SPreston said the interview was at 9:40. I'll try the next block.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Actual 'free-fall' versus actual time involved....
Check this out....(hope you don't have dial-up....seems too many ATS'ers do)

thedman chimed in with some off-topic nonsense earlier in this thread and now you're chipping in with some more off-topic material, Tim?

Take it to another thread that's discussing freefall. This thread is about identifying the 'Harley Man'.

Originally posted by manatthewindow
Furthermore, was that interview conducted live or was it recorded a few minutes before it was aired? Sometimes reporters will pretend that there was a technical problem with sound or whatever so that they can give a potentially interesting interviewee a second chance to give his answer.

Your whole post posed some interesting questions and observations. Cool.

I'd state that's more reason to find out who the Harley Man is, so that he can be reinterviewed.

We're speculating about him without any real facts, which is why the search for Harley Man should continue, until he's found!

reply to post by tezzajw


You're right....except if you'll look, what I'm guilty of is responding directly to another poster who brought up 'free-fall'.....so, we're both guilty.

Think of it as an intermezzo while waiting to hear back from Rob Riggle's publicist.

reply to post by Thought Provoker
Hi TP,
I think you missed something,
at least in reference to my post.
The mystery guy didn't even refer to explosions,
whereas many people did,
(I forgot to mention also reporters themselves)
sure,you can use the left side of your brain...logic
that's what most people did as I have gleaned
because they talked about explosions, because they heard them
and to most people explosions are something sinister,
because they are.
Use the right side of your brain and you can speculate
any scenario,and that's what this guy was doing,
a Marine who would know what an explosion sounds like
and the one thing that can really bring down pretty
much everything,yet he talks about paraffin
melting steel,and never mentions explosions,strange
I think.

A lot of people have jumped on Harley Man's statement as sounding scripted. It sounds very scripted to me. Not only is it a nice neat tidy summation of everything, including post collapse official explanation, but his vocal intonations are overdone. It's ever so close to a sales pitch and not just a reaction to a shattering event.

It fits the theme of the day. Jerome Hauer's sales pitch for bin Laden as culprit is another example. It's too forceful. It might just be his personality but it is too complete an explanation for the moment in which it is spoken.

It's like the demo itself. If a real artist had been involved, they could have wrecked the buildings in a way which was more asymetrical and chaotic. Verisimilitude would require a much slower collapse and an incomplete collapse. But this is where you see their handwriting to use an espionage term.

The handwriting of the whole operation is marked by haste, underestimating the people they were trying to fool and by greed. Silverstein might well be imagined to have insisted for financial reasons that the building come all the way down and as neatly as possible.

Same with Harley guy. Harley guy should have been two or three different people with different pieces of the BS line that they were going to take. Haste, taking people for fools, saving money.

Same with Bushelzebub himself. First reaction, greed. "Let's go after Iraq." He has to be forced into going after bin Laden in Afghanistan.

These people are perps from top to bottom. HarleyMan was one of them, I think.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by smurfy


Well, who knows. I think it's plausible that he was far enough away from the towers that he never heard the explosions that we all now know happened. How far from it do you think one would need to be? Most of the explosions coincided with all the other noise from the collapse. If Mystery Guy was more than, like, two city blocks from ground zero, he probably wouldn't have been able to hear explosions, whether they were lost in the noise of grinding concrete, bending metal, shattering glass, etc etc, or occurred before the collapses (mostly heard only by people inside the towers). How many people interviewed that morning on the streets reported hearing explosions at times other than while the towers were collapsing? I have no idea, but I don't remember any.

Whoever he was, if he were re-interviewed today, I could almost write you a transcript of it. He'd repeat his story, they would ask him how he knew all that so soon, he would say something like "Well, that's what it looked like to me," they might ask if he had pre-knowledge of it, he'd deny it, and that would be that. What good would it do?

Just like JFK, we may never get all the answers unless someone In The Know fesses up. Even then, the media would just instantly destroy his or her character somehow to make sure nobody believes a word of it. Ohhhhhhhh, for a time machine...

(PS: I don't remember him saying anything about paraffin... he only refers to "the fire," which to me implies "burning jet fuel"...)

[edit on 4/16/2009 by Thought Provoker]

Originally posted by depth om
I listened to them both at least 50 times, clicking back and forth on the play buttons. I don't think it's Rob.

You might be right. In my not working life I am a portrait/landscape painter. I can tell you that, in my humble but fairly well educated opinion, there is an amazing similarity between the facial features of Riggle and Harley Man.

letthereaderunderstand has noticed something that is not trivial.

Now we know in life that people have doppelgangers and sometimes the resemblances are uncanny. I even saw a book once entitled something like, "There Are Only Seven People On Earth." There were some great doppelgangers in that book.

That could be what is going on here, but the coincidences with Rob Riggle go even further. In and out and in the military at the time. Worked on the pile. Was in the military PR department. He's like Central Casting's dream to play Harley Man.

Is he Harley Man? Maybe. Maybe not.

I'll tell you one thing though. Considering the notoriety that Harley Man achieved on the internet, it is remarkable to me that it has taken so long to identify him. I think somewhere, people put two and two together a long time ago and have been keeping the knowledge secret.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by ipsedixit]