9/11 FEMA videographer at Ground Zero goes public

reply to post by madtruth09


This guy might not be a shill. However, there is Billions of dollars missing that provide a hefty budget to hire them...

Your post has a number of things that are new to me, and I thought I'd heard all the amazing coincidences.

It was odd, how at first the media and NeoCon pundits enjoyed making fun of the hijackers faith by pointing out their party with strippers the night before. We even heard from the ringleader's alleged girlfriend who worked as one. The, nothing. I'm guessing the meme that we were after jihadists is tainted if they seemed like they weren't committed. Who really want's to strap a bomb on after watching a pole dance?

The other thing that disappeared from the news, was the interview with a man who ran the small airport where the ringleader (was his name Moussoui or something? it's been years now) allegedly got his training. I learned from the WayneMadsenReport.com, that it was a "CIA Drop" -- an airport that the CIA uses and the planes that come in and out never get inspected by customs. It's just another coincidence. After that interview, those guys got a huge contract to service commercial planes -- so no telling if it's still a CIA drop.

The "truther" name calling has about the impact of an itch I can't reach -- as if I should be ashamed of the Truth? It would require a huge novel, to document each and every strange event that makes no sense unless of course, the whole thing was arranged.

>> And the "Dancing Arabs" who turned out to be Mossad. My theory is, that they were excited because they got some good video tape. If you'll notice, before 9/11 the Bush family wasn't so keen on Israel, but after, they were the biggest supporters. I think most of Washington is running on favors and extortion and little else.

Has anyone done an investigation of the CIA and the prostitutes and poker at the Watergate Hotel with the former head of the CIA and "unnamed politicians?" Nope. We never get answers. What is most annoying, is that the burden of proof to somehow get all the evidence (after it was destroyed) is on all the people who are rational enough to believe their own eyes. We keep falling into the trap of explaining beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get an investigation.

Clearly, if the Pentagon were telling the truth, they could have released all the videos, right? There was no need to destroy the telemetry data by the head of security at the FAA was there? If the Bush Crime Family had nothing to hide -- why were they hiding everything?

reply to post by Soloist


It would be interesting to find what sweet heart deal the inmates get for coming forward with "new evidence."

The guy was cleared, and now they want a new trial based upon two guys in prison? And they go to trial and say; "He told us he killed his wife and he really, really meant it."

Unless they have details of the crime - -it's useless testimony. But of course, this is Justice, so I'm sure they can find out the details from the prosecutor, right?

Originally posted by DangerDeath
Bush was obviously set up by "someone". They showed him the first crash and told him it was an accident.

Bush had no idea it was a false flag operation.

Maybe his father knew, but this junior most probably didn't.

Very doubtful. He looked scared silly reading that book about a pet goat.

More than likely, he was hoping no plane would crash into a school full of little kids.

Bush is not nearly as clueless as he pretends. He's just a basket case from drugs, having never paid a price for anything he did, and from a screwed up value system where he never grows up. He didn't plan it, but he knew about it -- he'd be throwing a huge fit otherwise.

And he wouldn't have been so nervous and scared if he really thought it was a little plane crash. Most everything these guys said was a lie.

reply to post by SPreston


Who is this mysterious second videographer? A search is only bringing up tons of links to the guy in the OP.

Was there a 2nd videographer or is that only a rumor?

Originally posted by sueloujo
reply to post by pop_science

 

He doesnt need legal aid becuase he didnt go to jail...so he has not motive whatsoever for this except maybe to show the truth.

Or to make money?... we see people do this all the time - bigfoot, alien in the window, october 14th ufo, etc.

Sorry....Until there is an actual video to show us that he says he has, this is nothing more than a story.

Due to member demand, this forum is now under close staff scrutiny...
Crikey!

And it says any inappropriate comments leads to ban or account termination.

Is that the US government who have just hacked in to warn us of discussing this

I thought free speech was allowed.

This I hope is an objective look at the evidence presented,
and then a Sherlock Holmes style conclusion.

From outside source provided in-thread...
"...Police had initially ruled out a suicide because it appeared that Nancy had been shot in the back of her head. The coroner's report said that the bullet entered about 2 inches above and behind her right ear. Police also noted that the .45-caliber handgun was on the floor 6 to 8 feet away from Nancy."

It is hard for me to conclude suicide based on the entry wound.
For one, the entry was two inches above and behind the right ear.
Now imagine yourself a woman, committing suicide, in a dramatic
fashion, on a dramatic day.

You have either planned this suicide, or it is a a spur of the moment
idea, perhaps after an argument with your husband, or some other
stimulus.

First, let's assume it was planned, and compare it against the evidence.
You decide to leave a suicide note, but after composing it, secrete it
behind a portrait to be found at a later time. You then shoot yourself
in such a way that the entry wound would initially rule out suicide (I
find it hard to believe that a woman would go to these lengths, but
I'm trying to be objective). So you position the gun in an awkward
fashion behind your ear and pull the trigger. (The gun was reported
to have been six to eight feet away, and considering the recoil of
a 45 cal handgun, and the weak position of the hand, recoil could
have accounted for this distance.)

Why would you go to this trouble? Perhaps this is your way
of punishing your husband for his transgressions. Knowing that intitially
he would be suspect, but in the end your suicide note would
extricate him.

conclusion...I find it highly unlikely that a woman would shoot herself
in the head in the first place, and if she did, I believe a shot to the temple
with the trajectory going straight across to the opposite temple, thereby
leaving her face out of line would be far more likely. The idea that a woman
would shoot herself behind the head and aim the bullet across so that
it destroys only the rear cap of her skull is unlikely, and the idea that
she would point the gun thru her head, knowing the exit wound would
be somewhere on her face, to me, is completely implausible.
I conclude murder in this instance.

Okay let's suppose this suicide was spur of the moment.

The woman quickly scribbles a suicide note, then hides it, then takes out
a gun and shoots herself. Why does she take the time to hide the suicide
note? And if the suicide note was placed earlier, then her suicide was
planned beforehand.
I conclude murder in this instance.

Okay, who murdered her?

It was reported that she had bruising on her chin, knee, arms and hands.
This would be consistent with someone struggling to hold her in place while
shooting her. The anomalous entry wound would also be consistent
with a struggle. (It would be hard to maintain holding a persons hand
to a gun, aiming and firing it, while the person is conscious
and struggling for their life. Also if the killer were an outsider, he would
have had to plan for an easy (and nearly instant) get-away...otherwise
the dead woman's husband (who was in the home) would have seen him.

While I have seen enough movies to believe that this could have been
pulled off by an outsider, the only plausible explanation would
be that killing her was a warning to the husband to "keep silent."
...Okay if that is true, it is highly unlikely. Why? Because you would
have to conclude..

1. The husband had prior contact with the PTB and had informed
them that he had damning evidence that (in the case of his
unexpected death) would be released to the public. This would
entail use of an outside friend who would release the evidence
after he was found dead. Now this scenario would only be plausible
if extortion (by the dead woman's husband) against the PTB
were part of the scheme.

...conclusion, highly unlikely

Originally posted by alienj
reply to post by crawgator406

 

Name one Truther that has gotten hurt or harmed by peddling their trash on blogs and internet sites. Zero, so the "I am afraid to get hurt" line is a waste of time.

There is a massive distinction between a person webbing their opinion and a person who has original hard incriminating evidence with a demonstratable chain of custody....

Thus your statement is a Staw Man argument

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern: 1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 3. Person B attacks position Y. 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Intentionally typed in twice:
There is a massive distinction between a person webbing their opinion and a person who has original hard incriminating evidence with a demonstratable chain of custody....




[edit on 23-6-2009 by seataka]

Here is another link to this story and very detailed,but you will have to read it in it's entirety.
I say that because it is obvious some posters did not even bother to read the OP's first link,which is less detailed in some areas.
One poster has queried Bush's remarks about thinking it was a bad pilot,he is on video saying just that..ever the bad taste funny man!

www.sott.net...

This is a link to the bad pilot speech,
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 23-6-2009 by smurfy]

(I ran out of room)

Lastly...this man's BEST defense would have been to release his
evidence immediately. Suppressing his "supposed" evidence serves
him no purpose. He certainly has had plenty of opportunity to
make what he knows public, but has not done so.

But what has he done?

He has written a book.

Alas, I conclude he killed his wife. He struggled with her, he held
her down, and he shot her in such a fashion as to make suicide
seem plausible. The part about his jailhouse confession seems
unlikely, but people sometimes need to make a confession
to purge their guilty souls.

I see no conspiracy here. Just an accused killer creating confusion
and conspiracy...for his own profit.

Mr. Sonnenfelt: We need to see these videos dude, I couldn't care less about the book.
There are threads here on ATS that will explain how you can embed videos, or you can just upload them to the ATS media portal.

It's been almost 8 years, thousands upon thousands have been killed in the 'War on Terror', so for Christ's sake bring it on already. There's an entire Truth movement in desperate need of these video's and you're just sitting on them writing books?

Get on with it and let us know here when they're up.

reply to post by rival
I see our last posts are at the same time,so I urge you read the S.O.T.T. link.You will see much about the mans background and work,and that he was already a writer and contributor,and that his jailmates were allegedly given time off for their tales of his confession.
At the end of the day you cannot do a Perry Mason on this one,and even if his colleagues do come forward on the 9/11 story,there is still another story without a conclusion and it's easy to see how dirty things can get.

Edit to add,the death of this mans wife has nothing to do with the tapes per se,she died in 2002 and he had not handed them over at that stage or even now,so presumably someone was looking for them by 2002.

[edit on 23-6-2009 by smurfy]

Originally posted by Psynarchist
Mr. Sonnenfelt: We need to see these videos dude, I couldn't care less about the book.
There are threads here on ATS that will explain how you can embed videos, or you can just upload them to the ATS media portal.

If this guy is legit, all he has to do is to get his video to see the light of day...in today's world that is easily done.

I don't think he has anything of substance but if he does, bring it.

If this story takes much longer to get an official investigation going, I’m afraid it will never happen. The JKF issue is a perfect example- they have release info that suggests a conspiracy, but i don't see any official investigation to find facts coming from the Government. That’s because as far as they concerned they know what went down and there is nothing to investigate-Its just you and I "Joe & Jane" average that wants to know more.

There is so much evidence in this story that would warrant another look by Government officials at the story. But who’s going to put their “neck” out and order one!

Obama …..Ha now there’s a joke …As much as what I like him and would like to see him be the biggest success, I don’t think that’s going to happen. He’s just a talker.

Is it possible to file a Action Lawsuit?

The only reason I can see for releasing the info a little at a time is . . . wait for it . . . TADAA!!! PROFIT. I agree with what was said earlier, if he had something damning and was so passionate about the injustice of it why not put it all out at once? This guy seems to be shopping for the highest bidder. On the other hand, if he did have something , wouldn't it be worth a high price to get the proof to nail the bastards behind it? I'm not saying it's right to sell the proof of a crime of this scale, it should be freely given on moral grounds alone. But, then again, this is the real world and the moral high ground is way out reach for some.

You know, im not so sure I can believe any of this anymore. It sounds very compelling but there are so many twist in the story I just dont think the US government is smart enought to get it all right. How does one explain al quaeda taking responsibility? Are they a US government entity as well? I just dont know if I can believe it either way.

reply to post by smurfy


On that video Bush said: T... CD was obviously on.

Maybe I didn't hear it right, but in this case, someone showed him the video of "accident".

He didn't see it on TV.

I haven't read through this thread yet, only the OP article.
But due to the nature of this article,
I predict trolling, irrational dismissal of evidence, and out of context quoting.
Lets see if i'm right
* reads entire thread *

reply to post by deltaalphanovember


Well, they will probably let him live since they do allow the truth to be seen, heard and read for those that have intelligence and perseverance to do their own research.

A new investigation will never be opened until the government is changed, if that is possible. All you need to do is listen to Obama and his BS rationale that he dishes out special for the sheeple. Its unbelievable what I hear coming from the administration. The rationale and logic they offer is fairy tale land.

So you see, the powers that be (PTB) know that no one can do anything about anything in this country, so they could care less about what information is released. It is such a difficult task to get to the truth nowadays, and the PTB know this, that a very small majority will understand what is really happening.

The PTB have been planning this for decades. They control perception, and for that matter, the truth that is freely (unquestioned) digested by most Americans and non-americans.

There is only one solution. And it ain't holding up a sign or protesting. Sorry to say that, but that is the hard cold truth.

reply to post by DAVID64
That is the contradiction really,if this is all for profit then it would have been done years ago,the money would be made and still making it now.The man has had his previous works shown on many major networks,so he would already how that system works.
In the OP's original link he also says that there may be "stuff"in his videos that he doesn't know the significance of,my thoughts are that the videos are an insurance for him and his family's welfare that they don't be shown until in the right hands.