The Misadventures of Kevin Ryan

Well, Mike Sparks and I spent three shows discussing the witnesses at the Pentagon, which you can find in the archives for "The Real Deal" at radiofetzer.blogspot.com.... The vast majority were simply not credible. As I observed during one of these programs--on 4 January, 10 January, and 1 February 2010--when I served as a Series Commander at the USMC Recruit Depot in San Diego, with 15 DIs and 300 recruits under my command, I could have had 300 statements "sworn on their mother's grave" that they had observed Bruce Wayne drive the Batmobile into the Pentagon on 9/11. I think you are just a bit too gullible. If you want to figure out the truth rather than allow yourself to be played for a sap, you are going to have to do better. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, but, as Pilots for 9/11 has explained, one appears to have flown toward it on a different trajectory than the official account, too high to have hit any lampposts, and flown over the building instead of impacting with it. If you don't already know this, then you are out of the loop. If you do, then you are faking it here. So which is it?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

and thousands of people from Ted Olson to a C-130 pilot to an immigrant from El Salvador to even a guy working in a junk yard are all co-conspirators who are lying to cover up this sinister secret plot

Nice lie, GoodOlLiar.

I have already posted the first hand testimonies of these eyewitnesses as well as many other eyewitnesses who state it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon, and I will post it again if you wish. The fact that scores of people in the vicinity specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon cannot be refuted. If you attempt to deny this then you will be lying.

I will admit I was wrong on one thing, though- you conspiracy people don't normally accuse these eyewitnesses of being secret gov't disinformation agents. For the most part, you conspiracy people usually run away from it in terror the same way vampires run away from sunlight because you know you can't refute what so many people are saying. So, you try to kill it with silence and pretend these people don't exist.

Thank you for that correction.

Why are you changing the subject, Dave? Can you take the heat on this thread? I am providing proof of what I have been explaining. You seem to be highly selective in your sources. OF COURSE THERE ARE MANY SHILLS WHO SUPPORT THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT. WHAT COULD BE MORE OBVIOUS? But most of what they have to say is either untrue or not even possible, given the laws of aerodynamics, of physics, and of engineering. I think you had better do a better job of considering all of the evidence, not just that part which supports your preferred point of view. Let's deal with video fakery on this new thread and proceed from there.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Getting back to the premise of this thread, it is extremely important that you not only identify false information, but also identify who is supplying it and their reasons for shoving it down your throat.

I agree with this 100%. In fact I agree with this 1000%. To simply declare something to be "gov't disinformation invented by secret agents" before running away giggling is not only ignorant, but childish. If you think it's gov't disinformation you'll necessarily need to explain why the person reporting it is a secret gov't agent and why he's spreading it.

Cases in point- the one reporting that there were out of control fires in WTC 7 that were causing three story tall bulges in the structure isn't some anonymous poster; it's coming from NYFD deputy fire chief Peter Hayden. The person taking the photos of Ground Zero wreckage showing there was NO evidence of sabotage on any of the WTC steel isn't some no name ghost that appeared and disappeared; they werer taken by NYC photographer Joel Meyerowitz. The eyewitness who specifically sae that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon isn;t some shadowy unnamed persona. It was Omar Campo, an immigrant from El Salvador cutting the grass across the street from the Pentagon. We know you conspiracy people know all this becuase it's been shown to you ad nauseum here.

Unless the conspiracy people can show how Peter Hayden, Joel Meyerowitz, and Omar Campo are really secret disinformation agents and why, then the conspiracy people are really doing nothing but grasping for excuses for why they shouldn't have to believe anything that disputes their conspiracy hypothesis. Such irresponsible antics only serves to damage their own credibility, not anyone else's.

Well, there may be a case to be made that one of us is lying, but it ain't me. To commit a lie, you must (a) make an assertion, (b) know that it is false, (c) do so deliberately (d) with the intention to mislead your target audience. Since I even READ Leslie Raphael's article on the air, I KNOW what you are saying is false. Indeed, I would invite anyone to read it through and not appreciate that the point of his article is to explain how many different features of the situation had to be EXACTLY SO in order for the cameraman to pan and catch the plane hitting the building. The hypothesis that it was staged, therefore, is overwhelmingly more likely than that this just happened "by chance". For you to post as though that were not the case is insulting to the intelligence of those who post on AST, not just to me. So if anyone wants to know if one of us is trying to fake out the members of the forum, I suggest they follow the link and take a look for themselves. PLUS Leslie has other, longer and more detailed, versions of his study, so no one should be disadvantaged by not having enough resources to resolve this issue.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Well, I went back to an earlier post where I have listed resources relevant to understanding 9/11--and, in the case of "7/7 Ripple Effect", to understanding how governments pull off these "false flag" attacks in order to blame those they want to blame by creating fake attacks--to see if the link to Leslie Rapahel's study of how the Jules Naudet film was staged still worked. It does, so you might want to actually read it. Take another look at the footage, where there is more to come, and explain how so many improbable circumstances could have come together to place him in the ideal--virtually, unique!--location to simply pan his camera smoothly toward the North Tower at the just the right time to catch the plane hitting the building! If you can do that, you are better than Harry Houdini! What Leslie explains proves this filming was staged. I think you need to put a little more effort and a lot more thought into your posts about 9/11.

To remain intellectually honest, I went back and read his treatise so I know you are lying. Nowhere does Leslie say "this is proof the Naudet film was staged". His own writeup clearly states this was entirely his own opinion. For one thing, the odds that "so many improbable circumstances coming together"" become less improbable once one realizes they all revolve around physically being there with the firefighters, which was the whole project they went to NYC to do to begin with. Like everyone else spinning these preposterous conspiracy claims, his goal is to get people all paranoid over imaginary sinister plots rather than offer any actual answers for anything.

Case in point- the Naudet film does NOT "smoothly pan up toward the north tower". It was a quick glance up and it was only a quarter second glimpse, and I shouldn't have to explain why he even glanced up - Gedeon Naudet was using the eyepiece of his video camera to capture what was going on around him, and when he heard the plane overhead he instinctively looked up and moved the camera with him. You do know video cameras have eyepieces that you can look through to aim the camera, right?

If you're going to be grasping at these absurd straws to foist your conspiracy hypothesis onto others then I would appreciate it if you were to have at least a passing familiarity with your material first. Did you ever even see the Naudet film?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Getting back to the premise of this thread, it is extremely important that you not only identify false information, but also identify who is supplying it and their reasons for shoving it down your throat.

I agree with this 100%. In fact I agree with this 1000%. To simply declare something to be "gov't disinformation invented by secret agents" before running away giggling is not only ignorant, but childish. If you think it's gov't disinformation you'll necessarily need to explain why the person reporting it is a secret gov't agent and why he's spreading it.

Cases in point- the one reporting that there were out of control fires in WTC 7 that were causing three story tall bulges in the structure isn't some anonymous poster; it's coming from NYFD deputy fire chief Peter Hayden. The person taking the photos of Ground Zero wreckage showing there was NO evidence of sabotage on any of the WTC steel isn't some no name ghost that appeared and disappeared; they werer taken by NYC photographer Joel Meyerowitz. The eyewitness who specifically sae that it was a passenger jet that hit the Pentagon isn;t some shadowy unnamed persona. It was Omar Campo, an immigrant from El Salvador cutting the grass across the street from the Pentagon. We know you conspiracy people know all this becuase it's been shown to you ad nauseum here.

Unless the conspiracy people can show how Peter Hayden, Joel Meyerowitz, and Omar Campo are really secret disinformation agents and why, then the conspiracy people are really doing nothing but grasping for excuses for why they shouldn't have to believe anything that disputes their conspiracy hypothesis. Such irresponsible antics only serves to damage their own credibility, not anyone else's.

How do you account for the amazing no. of doctored, discrepancy filled, computor generated photographs to be found on all memorial sites of 9/11 victims. Add to that the vast no. of personnal histories that are so lacking, don't add up or simply don't ring true. Footage from 9/11 has been proven to have been faked, from jumping bodies to impossible planes. I am sure you will ridicule everything i am saying, but i am also sure that you know what i am saying is true, which is why you will try to laugh if off. This area of investigation is the keystone which, once removed and exposed, brings the rest of the structure tumbling. This is why no-one wants to go near it or see the topic even broached. If most/all of the 9/11 Live broadcasted imagery was faked, If most/all of the victims are faked, then the testimony of witnesses adhering to the official story must be unreliable. I have heard it mentioned that people here at AST give short shrift to the research of septemberclues.info but for the life of me i can't see why, unless other agendas are being persued. Anyone studying this brilliant research can see the truth in it is clear, but of course, it is such a vast hoax with so many vested interests, that these truths must be urgently discredited and actively ignored, for the sake of all involved. The idea is to get people to keep focusing on the minutiae, thus keeping the focus away from the bigger picture; that the whole escapade was a hugh money-grabbing, power-driven hoax, years in the planning, achieved through media complicity, where there were no planes and no victims. We all accepted the huge woolly jumper with the very tight neck, which, even now, most the world still wears. But now we have hold of the loose neck-threads that can unravel the whole amazing technicoloured dreamcoat from the top down, shreading the darkness and shedding new light. Pull people, Pull.

p.s. thanks sphinxmontreal

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Well, there may be a case to be made that one of us is lying, but it ain't me. To commit a lie, you must (a) make an assertion, (b) know that it is false, (c) do so deliberately (d) with the intention to mislead your target audience. Since I even READ Leslie Raphael's article on the air, I KNOW what you are saying is false.

All right, I stand corrected. I concur you are not lying. It's really the case that Leslie Raphael is lying and you're simply repeating his lies. Case in point-

"Unfortunately — for them — the people behind this disguise operation were anything but professional, and it does not take a genius to deconstruct the whole thing, when the joins holding it together are so obvious, to anyone who can see not only what is in the film, but — just as important — what is not. Even the still photograph reproduced above raises questions. Where, for one example, in a Manhattan street scene at 8.45 am on a working Tuesday, is the moving traffic? The vehicles in the picture are all parked, and given that two of them belong to the Fire Department and are displaying emergency lights, it would be illegal to overtake them, or park behind them in the same block. Anyone, professional or amateur, who has tried filming street scenes knows about the problems moving vehicles can cause, and that the best solution is filming when there are none — but that normally means waiting for traffic lights to change. Or, even better, the situation in the Naudet film — a junction blocked by authority of the Fire Department, whether traffic lights change or not; a trick not available, it has to be said, to most ordinary photographers — one so unusual, in fact, that it immediately attracts suspicion. Furthermore, this photographer is not only filming at an officially blocked junction, he is filming the firemen who blocked it, as their guest — a 28-year-old beginner, treated the way a documentary film legend like Fred Wiseman might be; the suspicions multiply."

This gigantic paragraph can be answered in one sentence- when the plane hit everyone stopped to gawk at what was going on. Then there's this-

"At the scene of a potential emergency, a photographer without credentials from the Fire Department would have been told to stand well clear, along with other pedestrians: he would not get the kind of privileged access Naudet gets. And if the white mail van parked at the south-east corner in this film had been turning right up Lispenard Street, between Naudet and the north tower, just as the plane flew into it, not only — since he is in the middle of the road — would he have had to get out of the way rather fast, the plane's impact could not have been filmed. How very convenient that, at the appropriate time, the van was still parked at that corner, the only other vehicles that could have caused problems belonged to the Fire Department and Naudet's view of the tower was unimpeded by either vehicles or people — including the firemen, all conveniently standing well away from the film action to the south. ":

The Naudet brothers DID have permission from the fire dept to be there. They were accompanying the firemen all through the entire day and when Gedeon was separated from his brother and the firefighters he WAS told by the cops to get lost even with his witten permission. Raphael is being completely disingenuous, and you would have known that if you had actually seen the Naudet film instead of mindlessly accepting his lunacy.

There are other examples, but I'm not going to waste any more time on this drivel. When I say you people are simply swallowing the nonsense you found on some damned fool conspiracy web site, you're NOT exactly proving me wrong here, guy.

Dave is the resident 911 "debunker" ive never seen him create a thread , he has no interest in anything but 911 .
You'll know hes on his way if you post anything about 911 hel be there quicker than flies to a # to "debunk you "
its like hes in some trance that can only be broken if someone posts about 911

Unless the conspiracy people can show how Peter Hayden, Joel Meyerowitz, and Omar Campo are really secret disinformation agents and why, then the conspiracy people are really doing nothing but grasping for excuses for why they shouldn't have to believe anything that disputes their conspiracy hypothesis.

I think I have a better chance of finding a needle in a barn full of hey in one minute than proving the guys you mentioned are disinfo agents. Basically, short of these guys admitting that they lied, there is no way to prove such an allegation. And since I do not know any of these guys personally, I have no information about them other than their witness accounts.

This is where an experienced investigator comes in. When interviewing these alleged witnesses in person, the investigator should leave no stone unturned and should ask certain trigger questions. By analyzing each response thoroughly, only then will he have a better chance of determining the witness' credibility. And even then, you're involved in somewhat of a guessing game.

Finding the truth on 9/11 is not rocket science, it is however, a willingness for the Government and the investigative authorities to get to the bottom of what happened. Instead, they are covering it up and using the guilty as sin disreputable mainstream media to think for the dumbed down masses. The media robber barons made huge sums of money with 9/11 and these illegal wars. Why should they investigate something which is not in their best financial interest to investigate?

And guess what? The media is stuck - they can't investigate 9/11 because that would expose their complicity (thank you pshea38!) and incriminate themselves. So you see, 9/11 was a genius plan, sucking in the willing and unwilling, knowing and unknowing to cover for the perps. And since they're all in bed together, nobody talks.

The media's top priority is not to properly inform people to make this world a better place. The media's priority is to make us all think we are making this world a better place by drinking some soft drink or buying some cell phone. In other words, their number one priority is to line the pockets of its shareholders. Unfortunately, this is usually done through the blatant manipulation and the brainwashing of the consumer, as we saw on 9/11.

You can't just go around saying this is a conspiracy website and all the information contained in conspiracy websites is false. How ignorant is that? Just by a matter of chance, at least a portion of the information is truthful. You have to take all the investigative information (no matter where it comes from) and weigh it against the official account and then reach a conclusion. A daunting task to say the least, that the Government thought, few if any, would pursue.

Of course you also have to factor in the credibility of the sources of information, however, this by no means is the final determining factor as to the truthfulness of the information. For example, if I wanted a piece of truthful information hidden, what better way than to take a discredited source such as a convicted felon and have him spread this truthful information. Whackjob - he's lying - information is believed to be false by the masses and is hidden in plain sight. See how it works?

Cases in point- the one reporting that there were out of control fires in WTC 7 that were causing three story tall bulges in the structure isn't some anonymous poster; it's coming from NYFD deputy fire chief Peter Hayden. The person taking the photos of Ground Zero wreckage showing there was NO evidence of sabotage on any of the WTC steel isn't some no name ghost that appeared and disappeared; they werer taken by NYC photographer Joel Meyerowitz.

Thank you Dave; I will in turn use Witnesses Hayden and Meyerowitz as examples to show that their testimony may not be all that it's cracked up to be.

However, I will not waste my time commenting on Witness Campo or any other witness at the Pentagon who is delusional enough to think they saw a 757 impact with the building. The GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of a large commercial airliner crashing into the nation's Defense Fortress. When there is no visual physical evidence, you can pretty much throw these fake witness hacks into the disinfo or no-credibility bin. In other words, they're a dime a dozen.

OK, let's move on to Witness Hayden; do you consider his testimony 100% credible because he was a Deputy Fire Chief in a large city which, as we all saw on 9/11, is not immune to catastrophic corruption? Are all Deputy Fire Chiefs truthful people? Since humans across the board have the capability of being dishonest, what does one's occupation have to do with one's credibility?

Again, where is the conclusive visual (photographic, video) evidence of his claim of this three story bulge in WTC 7? Have the parts of this three story bulge been recovered from the salvage of WTC 7? If so, can we have a look and see what was bulging?

Where was this bulge situated? What created this bulge (impacts, fire, other damage)? What's his definition of a significant amount of fire in a 47 story skyscraper. Does he consider a portion of four or five floors with isolated pockets of fire significant?

What did he hear/visually witness, before, during, after WTC 7 collapsed? Why wasn't water from the Harbour, the Hudson or the East River pumped in to fight the fires? Why weren't accurate water drops ordered from airplane tankers to put out the fires at WTC 7? I mean...they only had six hours to do this. How was he able to definitively determine this building was going to collapse by not conducting a thorough internal inspection? Was the building leaning, which direction, how much, why? Is he surprised the building collapsed uniformly and spontaneously, since it had damage to one side only? And the beat goes on...

If Witness Hayden can get back to me with answers to these questions, I'll get back to you on his credibility.

As for Witness Meyerowitz, I assume this is the photographer who is profiting from 9/11 by selling books? So, the conspiracy sites which make chicken scratch selling t-shirts and baseball caps are not credible, but this guy, who is doing the same thing, making a little more than chicken scratch, is credible? Is that how things work in your myopic existence?

You claim that his photographs show NO EVIDENCE of sabotage in the WTC structural steel. Is that the appropriate way to test for evidence of sabotage? You have the physical evidence right there and you're relying on a photographer who could have easily been instructed what to photograph and what not to photograph? You tell me - how do you think he got the gig, by playing super sleuth or by kissing ass and following strict orders?

Again, where is the physical evidence? In this age of Photoshop and easily influenced individuals, what sane investigator relies on photographic evidence when they have the real physical evidence right in front of their faces? Therefore, Witness Meyerowitz photos have as much investigative value as some postcards in a gift shop.

However, I am interested in ordering Meyerowitz' book and having a closer look at his photographic abilities.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal

Why weren't accurate water drops ordered from airplane tankers to put out the fires at WTC 7? I mean...they only had six hours to do this. How was he able to definitively determine this building was going to collapse by not conducting a thorough internal inspection? Was the building leaning, which direction, how much, why? Is he surprised the building collapsed uniformly and spontaneously, since it had damage to one side only?

Accurate water drops from airplane tankers.

First of, water drops aren't that accurate. Second, airplane tankers are used to drop water on fires in open areas, not into buildings on fire. Do you really think an airplane can drop water from 1000 feet and make the water go in the windows of a building with sufficient amounts to put out a raging fire? Third, where are you going to whistle up these tankers from?

Side note, why do so many people seem to think it is just sooooo easy to have airplanes appear at the snap of their fingers?

Okay back to the quote. Several members of the FDNY have stated for the record that WTC 7 was showing an obvious lean to it, so much that they had set up a transom to measure the buildings movement.