'9/11 Eyewitness' Shown at International Press Conference

911 Eyewitness Shows at International Press Conference

Is the American Press still Free?

This was the title of a controversial presentation at a prestigious press club in Tokyo, Japan, Tuesday, March 14. The New York Times Tokyo Bureau Chief, Jim Brooks, said that he couldn't attend an official press function about 9/11 or he would be fired. Coincidentally, the Reuters Bureau chief, Daniel Sloan, was also a strong opponent to the event being held, but he and Brooks were voted down by international members and the event was able to go ahead.

911Eyewitness was screened during dinner for 50 international journalists at the Tokyo, Foreign Correspondents Club of Japan and received tremendous applause.
Those in attendance were virtually unanimous in agreement that controlled demolition brought down the towers after watching 911Eyewitness.

The lone vocal critic who labeled 911Eyewitness analysis featuring Newton's Laws of Science as "propaganda" was quickly silenced by additional testimony from ex-MI5 agent David Shayler, stating 9/11 was an inside job, streaming from the internet on Google's video site.

The evening was a resounding success for 9/11 truth.

Japan is currently buzzing with numerous magazine articles on 9/11 and may prove to be a key ally in the fight for truth. Stay tuned for more...

Thanks Valis for the heads up! (no, really this time!)

It is very disturbing that

It is very disturbing that we are left with no real investigation into 2300+ murders in NYC on Sept 11, 2001. More disturbing is that research that is not complete, expanding, contracting, changing or the like is not given the chance to see light of day. When there is no conclusive proof than all avenues must be looked at.

The intelligent here see that the simple listing of an article is not an endorsement of a finished piece of evidence. The article you are questioning is by Gerard, not by 911eyewitness or Rick Siegel. We are a free press and print articles that we feel question, not what you, them or anyone dictates to us. We think there are problems. We think this research is incomplete yet much of the article has truth and solid.

We can make no apologies that people like to read it.

We can make assertions in our own works and we put them out and they have our name on them and ready for anyone to take to court. If it has someone elseÂ’s name on it, it is theirs.

Let's go! Let the chicken shits cry we are ready to take our words, our evidence into any court. Debating here is not court; it is a den of pontificators who have nothing. We have it, we are ready, we said it, so where are the perjury charges? No where.

What we print as ours is 100 percent and backed. What we print on others is their works and they own their rights and the duty to defend.

CitizenKit Many thanks for


Many thanks for that "no plane" rebuttal :)

Now I need only one thing to say to AR and JH when they spout their nonsense...


Maybe we should let Rick and Jimmy know our thoughts and send them the link...


Excellent news. But, the

Excellent news. But, the line that really stood out for me was:

The New York Times Tokyo Bureau Chief, Jim Brooks, said that he couldn't attend an official press function about 9/11 or he would be fired.

Fired for just attending, not even reporting? Nuf said. I expect he might get fired now for having what he stated in print. Unbelievable.

OK, I'm really feeling

OK, I'm really feeling something is way wrong with 911eyewitness.com

I went to their site, and they're including an article called "Manufacturing Terrorism..." that ends with the "no planes hit the WTC" crapola. The reference for this is found on another page and takes the reader to 911hoax.com where these same claims are being made.

I've NEVER seen ANY merit in that theory, simply because there were thousands upon thousands of people in NYC who watched the second plane hit the South Tower with their naked eyes. There were many people filming/videotaping the horror too. The article doesn't suggest holograms (which are impossible at that level of sophistication, btw) but rather tells us that "the plane is simply a movie."

Now what gets me is that this absurd theory is being pushed on the 911eyewitness.com site, which has many other truly valid links (like the Scholars for 911 Truth ad).

For me, having any association with such ridiculous arguments taints the valid 9/11 researchers. Guilt by association.... or discredit by association. And, it certainly makes me very hesitant to believe ANYTHING ELSE on that site, including the quote about the NY Times Tokyo Bureau Chief, Jim Brooks who allegedly stated he could be fired. Not that I trust the NY Times, by any means, but come on people, no planes?

I smell Karl Rove-style disinfo BIG TIME.

"He challenged the

"He challenged the international press to do their own investigations to determine whether the bloggers have scooped the mainstream press on the true story behind the terrorism of Sept. 11, 2001. "

Assuming you've seen the

Assuming you've seen the documentary, wouldn't you agree its overall value greatly exceeds any after-the-fact commentary, regardless?

The author of that article

The author of that article featured on 911eyewitness.com is Gerard Holmgren from 911closeup.com where he continues on these absurd 'no planes' theories in great detail. I scanned through the articles and couldn't find even one explanation for how all the independent home videos recorded a plane.

Seems to me, this blatant attempt at disinfo needs to put in its place. I've ignored sites like this for years now, and that's easy to do. But, when these people are getting associated DIRECTLY with supposedly bona fide 9/11 sites like 911eyewitness.com, I think we've got some serious problems to contend with.

Assuming you've seen the

Assuming you've seen the documentary, wouldn't you agree its overall value greatly exceeds any after-the-fact commentary, regardless?

Yes, I've seen the doc and believe it has merit. The doc is not what I'm talking about. I'm very concerned that whoever the 911eyewitness.com person is, he is making a very serious error in judgement by including the Holmgren article. And, if you look at the 911eyewitness website, the article is 2nd in line, and 1st in number of hits.

CitizenKit--I totally agree

CitizenKit--I totally agree with you on the no planes hit the WTC bullshit. IT IS ABSOLUTELY A DISINFO TACTIC TO DISCREDIT 9/11 TRUTHERS & MAKE THEM LOOK FOOLISH!!!


If Rick (Siegel) is indeed

If Rick (Siegel) is indeed parroting the 'no-plane' theory, I share your concern, however if you consider the history of his prior comments, he seems pretty stand-up to me:

(re: the footage) "I went through hell to save this. I was offered $48 per second for that by the media right after the Newsweek article reported it, like everyone else with footage. Do the math. I could have been rich. I have made $0 on this ever. I could have sold it and you all would have nothing and I could be on an island retreat for the rest of my life choking on fiat currency.

There are a lot of people with a lot of different theories out there. To say that one, associated with another, make the data carrier null & void, is not concrete enough, in my book, to pass judgement on the individual.

After a little more digging

After a little more digging (wasting my time!), I see that Eric Salter at questionsquestions.net did an amazing job of putting Gerard Holmgren in his place.

The WTC Impacts: 767s or "Whatzits"?

valis, thanks for your

valis, thanks for your opinion. I don't have a problem with people who have different theories. What I have a problem with is nonsense "theories" like the no-planes one, stated as fact.

And, for me, it's an extremely bad judgement call on the part of Rick Siegel to include the Holmgren article on his site when there are 1000s of other articles that are far better, more convincing, more reputable and don't flatly suggest as fact that "the plane is simply a movie" without thorough explanation and evidence.

Eric Salter said it best in his article (linked above):

[The no-planes] argument has a singularly obvious hurdle to cross: We have many pieces of hard evidence-video recordings and photographs-that clearly show a 767 crashing into the south tower of the WTC on September 11th.

But I'm really not interested in debating the no-planes theory. What I'm concerned about is credibility when it comes to 9/11 research.

If David Ray Griffin had made the kind of argument Gerard Holmgren made, he would have lost complete credibility with me, and I'm quite sure he wouldn't have the stature he has in the 9/11 truth movement.

My point, again, is that Rick Siegel is in effect endorsing Gerard Holmgren's absurd claims simply by putting Holmgren's article prominently on his site. For me, that says that Siegel is using very poor judgement, and therefore has tainted his entire site.

I certainly don't trust anything about that article about the International Press Conference in Japan. People have to earn their reputation in journalism and Siegel has a long way to go in that regard.

IMHO 9/11 eyewitness should

IMHO 9/11 eyewitness should have a 2nd version released with just the original footage, nothing else. that is all that is needed to prove explosions prior to collapse, anything else requires a level of interpretation, and a good bit of unprovable conjecture.. why is that needed when the video/audio proof alone proves the case for C.D. and immediately proves the 9/11 story is a fraud? start there, then ask the other questions which you may have reason to beleive.

(not saying pull 9/11 eyewitness, saying i wish there was a version with just the video/audio so that others could use it in their own work)

reopen911.org is linking to

reopen911.org is linking to "no planes" pages. I looked at them and they told me what I should see, but I didn't see them.

maybe aliens had something to do with this but I still want to know how WTC7 fell like it did and why they are covering up after the fact.

official story is still the silliest conspiracy theory out there.

I looked around at the FCCJ

I looked around at the FCCJ website


and coldn't see any references to this at all over there. Is this for real?

911 eyewitness is

911 eyewitness is garbage!!!!

Top all "no plane is

Top all "no plane is garbarge" people.

Stop wasting time with attacking one another. Even if so, there is enough material to prove an inside job. Let's concentrate on this, after we couldn't prove or disprove what really hit the towers, the pentagon or the meadow in Shanksville.

Just to clarify this last

Just to clarify this last post by Valis: There indeed WAS a "911 Conspiracy Night" at the foreign press-club in Tokyo" 2 days ago.

Just click the link above.


FCCJ: Reminder: 911

Hey Rick I have always given

Hey Rick

I have always given you big kudos for 911eyewitness and that is forever...

All I ask is that you look at the rebuttal, supplemented with the HIGH quality video...

That whole webfairy stuff is freaky... and very clever and manipulative DARK...

and remember, for them to be correct, means that ALL real-live eyewitnesses, photos and videoes of the second plane were faked (not forgetting the airliner sound), something I find troubling and so would many others.

Jimmmy, also needs to rethink his main banner stating "Proof Blue Screen Technology Faked 2nd Plane"

This is just NOT TRUE

Respect to 911eyewitness ;)

Thank you for being kind, I

Thank you for being kind, I appreciate the care you take with me. It shows you understand I am a genuine person and want to do the right thing. I am there as a person for freedom and liberty. I came to 911 truths from the back door - the study of the powers and cults perpetrating frauds on the world through history. I was up to the Spanish American war when someone knocked on my door to tell me about 911 and the value in my tape.

The hardest part I have running the 911eyewitness/truth part of the site is to allow all the research to come in for my (and you who look) to see and tear into. We have to explore everywhere, sift, and we will finally release under our name if it is something we back. I am on a ton of lists, forums and mailing circles. Some claim I “embrace” their theory because I am on there entertaining their evidence. Please give me the opportunity to tell you when I embrace something. You will know as I write it under the site name or one of our own names on the team.

Truth be told, it was Gerard's amazing debunking of the official story that got me to his door. It is a very good piece and on my blog. He is a great writer and debater. I really know very little of the history in these years past with “plane huggers” “holograms” etc. Personally I never saw any of the strikes on the buildings and only know they did announce on the radio small passenger planes. I am as lost past that as anyone else who did not actually see it. Also he is a blues guitar player and that is how I encountered Rosalee and Gerard – through the music event I wanted to activate people with 911bluestour.

At 911eyewitness officially we stick to what is eyewitness and backed up with real people and real evidence. In the forums and /truth website in general we do stories, news, research, questions. Anyone can register and submit a story and if it is viable for question I put it up. I do not want to censor and there is a comment area for it and open forums for other aspects like this.

Can you get me the article to counter this? I am fine with that, or even would put up a forum for it. It took me a while to finally put up a forum for discussion on other aspects of 911 (other than what we have on the towers) and then no one wanted to use it. I am quite easy to find you know.

Sept 11, 2001 had several events other than NYC. I am only familiar with NYC and the work we did. I can only learn about the other parts. It is your duty to help and guide people like me through the pitfalls. Not to gawk and remark far from where I can find it. I have a lot to offer about the frauds for the last 1000 years and the NYC event for 911. I can only be a speculator tourist on the other events around 911. We are all at a disadvantage in not having the real evidence, the real story and that is a huge problem for all of us to face.

Now, as to this meeting in Japan, this is big. As the first poster noted, the man said he would lose his job if he attended a 911 conference, even if it was an official Japanese Press Club conference? Whoa! It is why our contact in Japan got us the info so fast. So we wrote the article. Note it is a 911eyewitness article, no other byline. We did that we stand by it. Now if there is libel then we will be sued. If there is something distorted we will be called to task. I posted this everywhere and shoutcast.com and Technorati. There is no doubt you will find the story. You will see none of that from these people admitting or doing anything to us about it. It is all fact. We are the free press. Now when they hack, burn, confiscate and destroy our computers we hope you will know why too. They have already done that to me since 911 two times.

911 Eyewitness - you are to

911 Eyewitness - you are to be commended for your commitment to the truth and your respect for the rights of others to hold opposing views.

But any person that includes so called 'nut job' topics at their website, or in their video is virtually begging the public to dismiss their views.

Topics to absolutely stay away from:

Halocaust denial
David Icke
No planes at WTC (Holograms)

Contentious topics that may be worth mentioning but which should be seriously qualified:

what happened at the Pentagon

The general public are sincere in wanting answers to 911. But they do not have the time or resources to wade through all 911 theories. So they will reject immediately any sites or films that mention the topics I pointed to before. They deserve better. 911 researchers deserve better.

Whether we like it, know it, admit it or understand it, 911 awareness is a product on a shelf no different than soap or toothpaste. If people want to see their product in the discard bin, that's ok, but if they want it accepted and examined then they have to keep it simple, spruik the good features and ignore the bad.

Here's what I tell people:

The 911 Commission didn't do its job.
The NIST report is deficient.
There is strong evidence the WTC buildings were demolished.
NORAD hasn't properly explained its failure on 911.
The Osama confession video is fake.

Then I point them to:
911 Scholars for Truth
Loose Change 2

I know its not easy. But the target audience is the general public. 911 awareness is a marketing product.

Associating with less verifiable or more contentious aspects of 911 is absolutely the fastest way to get your ideas rejected.

Avoid holograms like the plague!!!

Hi Rick I understand fully

Hi Rick

I understand fully and empathize...

Gerard Holmgren, was someone who I regarded as one of the most talented and articulate of all 9/11 researchers and I was a big fan.

I had to make a break because no matter which way I look at the bluescreen theories and yes both halves of my brain are working "sweetly" - I can only see them detracting from the ultimate goal and will often have an adverse affect on credibility of the truth movement (as was true with the hologram).

I find it hard to believe that such an intelligent person, such as Gerard, cannot see this also. This then makes me look at him in a more sinister light (I only wish he was under a temporary spell by the webfairy, he was a great asset).

The article which I believe should wipe the NET of bluescreen crap was written by Eric Salter, a professional video editor of over ten years.

Full Article : http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html

Clip of second plane at 60fps (and folks reckon this is CGI... bahhh)


To me that one movie says it all... Don't touch any bluescreen kak with a bargepole

Please let Jimmy know if you believe it is better for the movement in its entirity.

Take care Rick and all the best

damien, the 9/11 Commission

damien, the 9/11 Commission did do its job: it covered up the truth, as it was meant to. Nor did NORAD "fail"--it succeeded in standing down.

As well, there isn't merely "strong evidence" that the World Trade Center buildings were demolished via explosives and/or thermite, there is proof beyond any reasonable doubt.

And "stay away from" MKULTRA? Why? Even the U.S. government admits that MKULTRA is real.

Your phraseology is mealy-mouthed and wishy-washy. Most people aren't going to be very motivated to listen to someone who doesn't even sound like he himself believes what he is saying.

The fact that the U.S. government staged the 9/11 attacks is just business as usual for said government. The U.S. government has a well-documented history (i.e., modus operandi) of staging such Hegelian dialectical PsyOps attacks as the Pearl Harbor attack, Operation Northwoods (which although didn't go forward due to John F. Kennedy, all the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff approved it to be implemented), the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, etc., etc.

For more on government-staged terrorism, see the below post by me:

"Documentation on Government-Staged Terrorism," September 30, 2005:


James... "staging such


"staging such Hegelian dialectical PsyOps attacks as the Pearl Harbor attack"

Pearl Harbor was provoked, and allowed to happen. It certainly wasn't "staged" by the U.S. Government.

I'm sure that's what you meant...

I agree with some of what Damien has to say. There are subjects that are better left unsaid until the person is comfortable with the idea... sometimes, it takes people longer than others...

Jon Gold, the U.S.

Jon Gold, the U.S. government did stage the Pearl Harbor attack. They intentionally provoked Japan in order to get exactly that response, they knew well in advance that the attack was coming, and they intentionally arranged for Kimmel and Short to be in the dark as to what was coming.

The U.S. government didn't fly the Japanese attack planes, but then "stage" doesn't necessarily imply that, either. All it implies is that the U.S. government intentionally set up the event.

While it is alright to leave some true subjects unsaid due to time consraints, one ought not to be mealy-mouthed and wishy-washy about the truths that are said. And what truth regarding the staged 9/11 attacks needs to be conveyed most of all is that it is by no means an isolated, or even rare, event. Governments have been using staged PsyOp attacks throughout history in order to get their masses in line.

In other words, it's the nature of the system of control that we are dealing with that needs to be conveyed above all else. If people think that the notion that the U.S. government staged the 9/11 attacks is some sort of aberrant phenomenon then it will be harder for them to accept, since it doesn't fit into their worldview. They need to be shown how it is not an isolated event, and how fits in with genuine history as well as the internal logic of the state system (i.e., the incentive structure of the system).

James Redford - There's

James Redford -

There's nothing "mealy-mouthed" about what I have said. If you want the general public to listen to you then talk to them reasonably, don't wave every conspiracy theory under the sun in their faces. Yes Mkultra was true (I know that). But why not throw the JFK assasination theory in there as well?

" damien, the 9/11 Commission did do its job: it covered up the truth, as it was meant to."

When I said:"The 911 Commission didn't do its job" I was putting myself in the shoes of an uninformed member of the public who has a normal expectation that commissions of inquiries, and the like, will basically function and get at the truth. You and I both know that it failed in that job. (We probably disagree about the level of conspiracy of the Commission members).

Ok, so what I'll do is go up to Joe public and tell them "Hey, the 911 Commissioners all know for sure that George Bush was in on it so they all got together and quietly agreed that to just lie and lie and lie...because they actually fully endorsed the death of 3,000 people on 911". Sound like a reasonable thing to say? How far do you think you are going to get with Joe Public with that line? You may as well start talking about 'the martians did it'.

Here's what I say when asked:"The general body politic of the US is fairly corrupt and over the years the role of Congress has been usurped by the Executive. In the case of 911, the Commission was kept away from key evidence such as intelligence warnings, flight data recorders and first hand witnesses. For reasons of political expediency they failed to adequately examine or publicise the testimony of key witnesses like Sibel Edmonds and Colleen Rowley. The 911 Commission has abnigated its duty to the victims of 911 to get at the truth. In some matters (such as the NORAD timeline) the details given by the Commission are untrue and a coverup. The Commission itself was limited in its investigative zeal because its members had serious conflicts of interest, and some of the key members (eg Zelikow) were effectively working for the White House. You've never had a proper investigation, only a story that does not stand up on the facts."

Here's soemthing to consider: when people go to court do they tell the judge what conclusions to draw? Of course not. They just give the judge the evidence and trust their good judgement. In the same way unless you allow members of the public to make up their own minds, then as soon as they come across one part of your 'pet theory' that strikes them as absurd they will not only reject your theory but even the very idea of 911 as an inside job.

I show people the evidence discrepancies in detail (WTC, NORAD, confession video, ANTHRAX). I then tell them that I believe these evidence discrepancies are so significant that it is almost certain that persons other than the 911 hijackers were involved. I encourage them to inform themselves and I point them towards resources that contain as little distracting or unsubstantiated material as possible. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

I admit to you that "NORAD hasn't properly explained its failure on 911." is poorly phrased because it implies NORAD only needs to 're-explain' its position (which I didn't intend).

I think a better way of saying it is: "NORAD failed on 911 to intercept the planes. The reasons they have given have been shown to be false. All the signs are that NORAD was stood down on this day. A fully independant inquiry into this is needed."

Finally, you cannot prove that someone sat down and actually used Northwoods as a blue print for 911. But you can prove that the FAA and NORAD timelines don't match up. You can prove that the person in the Osama 'confession' video is NOT OBL. You can prove that controlled demolitions of the WTC are the most scientifically reasonable explanations. That is why these pieces of evidence should be promoted.

By all means stick 911 Truth vigorously in front of people. But make sure it's a fact, not a theory. Give your own ideas, if asked. And allow people to then make up their own minds. People do not like being lied to. So show them they have been lied to by the US government. THEY will then make their way through all sorts of conflicting 911 theories and make the appropriate allowances for people's prejudices or errors.

But we should show people lies that they can unmask easily, basics that drive home the point - unless, of course, we just want to talk amongst ourselves.

You're right on one thing: 911 was just part of a continuing pattern of crime on the part of key US leaders. Identifying and prosecuting them will likely only occur if 911 is unmasked. For that, we need to convince the general public.

James, most of what you say

James, most of what you say I would privately agree as likely to have ocurred. We have different views on dealing with the public but I take you as a sincere person committed to 911 truth. I wish you the best.

I think when people hear

I think when people hear "staged", they think that they carried out every aspect of the attacks.