More 9/11 Emergency Calls Released

AP has the goods:

The tapes of 19 emergency calls from Sept. 11 - including one from an office safety director - were released Friday as part of a lawsuit filed by The New York Times and some victims' families.

The latest calls were to police operators and some later transferred to the Fire Department.

City officials said eight World Trade Center victims made 11 of the calls. The complete recordings were sent to their families, who could later decide to make the caller's side public.

In recent years, the city has released hours of emergency calls that were made amid the chaos of the terrorist attacks. In March, officials issued transcripts of 130 calls from people trapped in the towers, including only the voices of operators and other public employees.

In August, more than 1,600 previously undisclosed emergency calls were released. And a year earlier, thousands of pages of emergency workers' oral histories and radio transmissions were made public.

A call made by Larry Boisseau, fire safety director for OCS Security, was the only victim identified on the calls released Friday because he was on the job. The rest only played the operator's side of the conversation.

"EMS is not picking up," the operator told Boisseau, 36, of Freehold, N.J.

"OK," Boisseau said, exasperated. "Maybe you can keep trying. ... I kind of got to get going. This is my job. Fire safety."

The call was less than three minutes long.

The Times and families sued the city for access to the calls and firefighters' oral histories. Attorneys said they wanted to find out what happened in the towers after two hijacked jetliners crashed into them and what dispatchers told workers and rescuers in and around the buildings.

BTW, the people who have

BTW, the people who have been threatening to sue me or file administrative charges against me, threatening me physically, making false statements about me, etc., are CONTINUING to do so. Therefore, my break from writing about 9/11 is over.

If they are going to attack me no matter what I do, then I will continue speaking the truth. If they will attack me even if I agree to lay low, then I will be a truth warrior and I will also defend myself. I was willing to stop writing in order to protect those I care about. But if those working to de-rail the 9/11 truth movement (or who are so driven by ego, arrogance, or dysfunction that they don't care if they de-rail it) will attack me anyway, then I will step back publicly and fight twice as hard to bring all of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks to justice.

what exactly is going on

what exactly is going on man? ive heard little comments here and there but nothing too specific. i totally understand if you cant or dont wanna get into it, but whats up man? you do great work, i hope you keep it up and everything turns out ok.

I'm sure he is referring to

I'm sure he is referring to the new king of attack and misinformation Rick Siegel. You know, the guy who just bought Nico Haupt a domain name and considers him a "good researcher"?

Domain Name: 911BLOGLINES.COM
Whois Server:
Referral URL:

Now he is promoting the B.S. about Loose Change having 22 million dollars to make their new movie ->

I'm sure that is who G.W. is referring to.

Without a doubt. Take the

Without a doubt.

Take the high road, GW. These people are dangerous.

GW, these fear, intimidation, & threatening tactics being used

against you are totally unacceptable! You should report all this to your local police & Congressperson, at the very least just to get it on official record. I also think you should do a blog entry about all this (if you feel comfortable about doing so).

Best wishes!

can youshow us the proof that Siegel purchased this URL?

I do not see his name in what you posted

What has Rick Siegel been doing? I haven't heard anything about

this. (Also, do you have some links.) Thanks.

Show "If MIT Engineer, Jeff King," by


"The strange coincidence with respect to this debate is the involvement of Steven Jones. He is the biggest opponent of the use of energy weapons, especially since he put forth this thermite theory. By coincidence, he was also the biggest opponent of Pons and Fleischmann's discovery of free energy back in 1989. I find it strange that two fields that have virtually nothing to do with one another (9/11 and cold fusion) have involved Steven Jones. Why has Jones’s work in these two unrelated subjects, become the authority that discredited the existence or possibility of free energy?"

Maybe it's because he is a smart man, who also happens to be interested in controversial fields. Do you honestly believe one man, Steven Jones, could hold back a technology like cold fusion? Absolutely not. Everyone who has done remotely credible work on the subject has had their work published in a scientific journal or respected publication, and all other scientists are free to read everyone's work and try and replicate the results. Since no one has apparently been able to replicate the results of Pons et al., I think Jones was correct to critcize their work. It is not possible for Steven Jones to be personally responsible for "supressing" cold fusion.

Show "i'm not saying jones hasn't" by

So you're stereotyping

So you're stereotyping people that are interested in controversial fields? What about him makes you think that? Because he comes across as a sincerely nice person?

You said yourself that the energy industry would still make money from oil, but confusingly try and relate Jones to both free energy and 9/11. Please clarify your ideas. Again, how does employing one man, Steven Jones, supress free energy? Have others been able to replicate the results of Pons et al.? If not, Jones has nothing to do with it. He was probably just calling it like he sees it.

Don't waste your time

Think about why they go after Jones - he found the proof.

All the evidence, however compelling, is either circumstantial or conjecture. Not that it is not important. It is just not absolute proof.

Jones found the proof. He found the fingerprint, the DNA. His tests are as hard evidence as any DA would ever hope for trial.

So suddenly, holograms and space beams. Anything to undermine the fingerprint.

But it's not debatable. Jones has proved that some hkind of thermite compound was used. By analysing samples of metal, he is coming pretty close to figuring out the exact makeup of that compound. This is what sciance can do.

This is why attacking him is so essential to the enemies of our country who perpetrated this mass murder.

The thing to remember is, when you identify a disinfo agent, who is lying to discedit Jones' work, attacking him with bogus claims like the one above, that person is not just a disinfo agent. That person is an accessory after the fact. Maybe even a perptrator..

Either way, that person is as guilty as those who wired the buildings.

And, though it's not always easy to tell, it looks like you have one right here.

This is incorrect. I

This is incorrect. I don’t disagree that thermite could have been used. I have no problem with the evidence that Jones has found. My theory, is that conventional controlled demolition techniques were used to demolish the trade center. There certainly could be evidence of this. If there was evidence of thermite, I agree that it is very possible that thermite was used. However, I do consider it a possibility that unconventional explosives were used as well. It may have been thermite plus something else. The simple truth is that I don’t know for sure. I don’t know exactly how the world trade centers collapsed. I don’t know what type of explosives were used, why type of demolition technique was used… all I know is that they were brought down by controlled demolition. One of the most convincing lectures that I initially saw when I was looking into 9/11 was Jeff King’s lecture. If he thinks that there might be some sort of unconventional technology used in addition to known demolition techniques (eg. Thermite), then who am I to say that I have all the answers?

However, when all this energy debate started going, I realized that something wasn’t right. When you watch some of the movies about free energy, you will realize that this is a far bigger secret that 9/11 is. Free energy is more threatening to those who carried out 9/11 and that’s why it makes sense that they would protect this secret by implanting Jones into the debate. In every other threatening movement, all groups have been infiltrated at the highest levels of their organizations and nobody realized it. This movement doesn’t really stand much of a chance of discovering who is working for and against us. That being said, Jones has done a lot for the 9/11 truth movement. These people are actually very helpful and productive at the moment. The things they say are accurate and correct for the most part. However, it is the things that they don’t tell you which turns out to be the important information. So follow Jones and his thermite theory. It will certainly lead to exposing the truth about 9/11. However, these people are in place to simply protect the larger truth from being exposed. This is something that we should all be aware of. Just watch Heavy Watergate on youtube or google video. You’ll realize that they made a mistake by using Jones twice for the same purpose when they should have picked someone with a ‘clean record’. So I’m basically saying that Jones has done a lot for the 9/11 truth movement and that his research has been mostly accurate, however, he has taken a leading role in this debate to hide greater truths which may include secrets about free energy and the real source behind the attacks.

So if you want me to clarify my position… listen to the mp3s in my first post. I think Jeff King is the most credible source in my opinion that has come forward for 9/11 truth and I think he is a very intelligent man whose knowledge on the subject far supersedes mine.


Show "I can't stand that people" by Whitey

"Do you honestly believe one

"Do you honestly believe one man, Steven Jones, could hold back a technology like cold fusion? Absolutely not. Everyone who has done remotely credible work on the subject has had their work published in a scientific journal or respected publication, and all other scientists are free to read everyone's work and try and replicate the results. Since no one has apparently been able to replicate the results of Pons et al., I think Jones was correct to critcize their work. It is not possible for Steven Jones to be personally responsible for "supressing" cold fusion."

One man is capable of a lot of things. You obviously haven't read enough concerning this matter. Many labs at Universities around the world have replicated Pons and Flieschman's work. Stop to think of how much money is involved in fusion research and you'll realize why the big US schools attacked Pons and Flieschman. Jones is not the only person who attacked and diverted attention from what people should have been focusing on. The entire middle man paradigm for fuel consumption is going to come crashing to an end once suppressed technology is released. Individuals in the same position as Jones only hurt the masses when they play games with research to ensure their swollen budgets. I've worked in government labs myself and I've seen how the game is played.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

Show "911 blogger" by atwitsend

Without naming names, I will say

that ALL of the people threatening me are promoting the directed-energy-weapons-brought-down-the-WTC theory.


I've always been a big fan of your work. Please keep it up.

Directed Energy Weapons

Is that considered impossible by the majority Truth community? I'm not a no-planer, as their arguments defy simple logic, but I am one who studies con-trails and chem-trails and wonders about the "Telsa Howitzer" and weather based terrorism. Directed energy weapons, like the Pentagon's new mob-dispersing heat ray gun, are real. Isn't it possible something like that aided in the demolition?

Anything is "possible" but

Anything is "possible" but that doesn't make it "probable" and most assuredly not "provable".

This has a lot more to do with the intentional disruption and attacks of certain individuals than with caring about anyone's opinions.

glad yer not a no-planer jersey jay!

I also think its cool that your interested in weather manipulation w/ tesla techno and new microvave weapons and such....but

even just conventional explosives (commonly used in demolition) are an exellent explanation for the collapse of the twin towers and wtc 7! .....Occam's razor!

(at least we agree there was a tremendous energy release)

Not to mention that Steven Jones exellent work regarding thermite, thermate,super thermate and super nano thermate....

.....dovetails with the fact that molten metal in large quantities was found in three basements and also explains (very nicely)video+pictures of dripping molten iron and or steel from wtc2 !

Admittedly, Uncle Fetzer and his space beam troopers have many pictures of cars with strange anomalous flash type burning...... but maybe "super nanothermate" can possibly even "explain" those car pictures(maybe)

wtc6?......big ass hole!... conventional explosives, super thermate....either one (maybe both)

space weapons....not necessary!

Stay down to earth.

NOAA pic

Possible, but who would believe it?

I would say if the perps of 9/11 used a space beam to destroy the WTC, then they deserve to get away with it. There's no way -- NO WAY -- more than 1% of America will ever simultaneously believe that (1) 9/11 was an inside job, and (2) the WTC was destroyed by directed energy beams.

Let's work on convincing people of (1).

How the WTC was destroyed is not our problem, until after a proper and thorough investigation takes place. Until then, all we know is that the WTC was definitely not destroyed by office furniture fires and some displaced fireproofing.

Thermate proves 9/11 was an inside job.

Thermate proves 9/11 was an inside job.

We don’t need any other evidence. As Steven Jones said in his interview with Fetzer, we don’t need to fully explain how the towers were destroyed. He doesn’t have to prove the social security numbers of the people who put it in the towers. That’s nonsense. He's already proven that 9/11 was an inside job. No more evidence is needed.

The space beam theory is absurd. For it to be true the weapons would have to be able to break the laws of physics. Debris shot AWAY from the towers in ALL directions as far as 400 feet. How can a beam explain that? Also, it would have to go through much of the showering debris to strike the towers. The debris pattern was almost perfectly symmetrical. Therefore we can infer that it was not affected by an external energy source.

All of the so called “evidence” supporting the space beam theory is extremely dubious. Calling it junk science is too polite. You are not fooling anyone with this garbage.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Show "That is an absurd claim." by S. King
Show "Particle accelerators cause" by Whitey

Maybe I don't know much

Maybe I don't know much about that theory. You all calling them "space beams". I was just asking the question, but what I think I know about directed energy doesn't have anything to do with "space beams". If that's their moniker, they want to sound kooky; if it's yours, you're just being derogatory. I don't care enough to argue about it - like I said, just asking.

Show "QUANTUM PHYSICS" by middike
Show "Dude I have no clue why your" by Whitey
Show "ZERO POINT ENERGY" by middike

from that movie, race to

from that movie, race to point zero... the guy who's the editior of that magazine got murdered in 2004... supposedly by two crack heads. and interestingly, the one of the people involved in getting the evidence against those two crack heads is the same guy who was invovled in evidence for the OJ simpson trial.

Zero point energy

Thank you! :)

you know

i am 100% in your corner - and working on my next project to tackle this particular problem.

my personal feeling is that we need to stand together as a community to shine as MUCH LIGHT AS POSSIBLE on this particular problem.

its kinda like the chant to hear at protests when the cops start to get a little out of hand:


Well that's a subset of the

Well that's a subset of the people who think directed energy beams COULD, not DID, play a role. Don't villify all of us.

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)


GW, TAKE LEGAL ACTION MAN! If these freaks have threatened you or anyone you care about THAT'S A CRIME! I've seen all this bullshit, it’s Nico Haupt and the other jokers posting people's real names and addresses, I didn’t realise it had descended into threats though. I think it's also got something to do with, and you helped to set that up? So you had some of the domain names, and when they wanted to fill the site with disinformation you blocked some of it?

They're a bunch of scumbag freakshow jokers, again dude see what legal avenues you can pursue, that's my best advice, I wouldn’t take shit like that for a second!

Agreed. And not only legal


And not only legal action, but physical action, if neccessary. You are empowered by the law(and common sense) to use up to and including lethal force in self-defense or the defense of others. Work with your local cop-shop. THEY WORK FOR YOU--make them do their damn jobs. Do not be a victim of the "guy code"-- waiting until long after the nick of time to call 911 or take whatever preventive actions you can for fear of looking weak. We all have a RIGHT to be safe.

Good luck.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I agree

But forcing GW to pursue legal action is a kind of victory for them.

They are trying to be a distraction. A trial would distract GW from pursuing 9/11 truth. It would take time, energy and money away from him to pursue any legal remedies.

I honestly don't know what to recommend, but just don't assume that taking legal action is the best strategy. If it's the only recourse to stop these people... then by all means.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

 My position is he should

 My position is he should have a plan and do whatever he's going to do IMMEDIATELY after provocation. This is a too common mistake people make who don't want to look foolish, weak, "cause a fuss"--waiting so long that they lose control of the situation and it is hard, from an outside observer's standpoint, to tell who started what when.

 Document, in writing and without fail, ALL weirdness. ANYTHING that hints at a problem, confront it IMMEDIATELY. Example--strange man seems to walk by front of property ALOT--make excuse to confront (check the garden, pull weeds, whatever) "Excuse me sir, can I help you? You seem to be lost.(use agressive politeness). If he can civily BS his way out, let him--then document the event. He starts getting tetchy and defensive, point out why you asked. He tries to escalate, calmly but firmly tell him his behavior is threatening and if he doesn't stop you will call 911. DO NOT repeat yourself. He continues speaking acting threatening, disengage and call the police IMMEDIATLY--ignore any pleas AFTER he's misbehaved.

 I don't need to tell you to hit back if he attacks, right?

My point is that people are conditioned to think something is wrong with them if they call the authorities--who they pay taxes to employ. Change that frame: you pay for the cops--they work for you. We are all our own first responders--but the police are our back-up and clean-up crew.

 All of this--"nice"confrontation,documentation, involving police when necessary, security investments(alarms, personal defense)--not only makes a possibly legal case more solid, but it sends a meta-message to the opposition: it is dangerous for your people to fuck with me.

Even the bastards prefer easy targets. 

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Show "Guarding the family jewels on behalf of "9/11 truth"" by theSaiGirl

physical threats

Someone has posted a comment advocating physical violence against another poster here --

Where have physical threats been made against you? That's a shame.

You going...

To AZ? I'd like to finally meet you.

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

And believe it or not...

It's not to kick your @ss... ;)

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

Show "It was your choice." by S. King
Show "9/11 decoy" by middike

Dont mind the crazies.

Nico Haupt is a raving lunatic. I've had to deal with his insanity before. We stand behind you GW.

Show "Release" by get it right

Alot of people are incorrectly saying that

people such as Fred Burks, or Steve Jones or I are working to supress research on free energy. This is 100% wrong.

For example, Fred Burks writes ALOT on free energy:

This is a false argument.

And I Not Only Know

about directed energy principles, I have written about them. For example, in this essay on weather change (discussing both man-made warming and natural variation), I say:."

"Secretary of Defense William Cohen at an official Department of Defense news briefing:

'Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves'.

Wierd, huh? A secretary of defense discussing weather wars.

There are other statements which indicate that the governments or organizations have developed or attempted to develop ways to modify natural conditions on the planet. Indeed, if you think about it, it makes sense that the government would want to control the weather as a weapon against its enemies. See, for example, this article and this video (NOTE: I am NOT vouching for the arguments made in these last two links. Honestly, I am not informed enough concerning the topic of weather wars to render an opinion. I am presenting them solely to raise the issue for the sake of a full discussion).

Personally, I do not believe that such weather-modification technology has the current ability to cause the degree of climate change which has already been experienced."

And personally, I DO believe that alternative energies have been supressed. For example, I learned in college that there used to be cable cars and other forms of public transportation going across some of the California bridges and public streets, but that the big car companies lobbied to get them torn out (look it up on Google). I've also heard, but have not verified myself (Google), that big oil companies bought up solar power inventions so they could KILL them and supress solar power breakthroughs.

Personally, I also believe that higher-tech forms of energy generation have been supressed, and that people have likely been killed to supress such research. I would imagine that WantToKnow has some of that information here:

I despise the oil companies, and believe that moving away from oil and turning to alternative energies (some of them high-tech) is CRUCIAL and is perhaps the most important issue besides false flag and 9/11. Indeed, I think the two ARE linked because I believe 9/11 was partly carried out as a justification to go seize oil in the middle east.

And I don't know whether or not directed energy weapons were used at the WTC. But I do know that making BAD arguments using FALSE evidence about directed energy weapons
will discredit the whole 9/11 movement AND discredit any real arguments (if there are any) about dew and the WTC. See and

Indeed, while I am saying this tongue-and-cheek, it is possible that those loudly trumpteting such obviously flimsy arguments for DEW are actually working to DISCREDIT all real research about DEW and directed energy principles in general. In other words, while I do not believe this, one could argue that the folks aggressively promoting such erroneous evidence work for the oil companies to discredit any serious discussion about alternative energy.

Stanley Meyer's "Water Fuel Cell"

Dennis Lee and Stanley Meyers drove together in Stanley's water powered car from California to New York powered by 28 gallons of Water. Stan was subsequently conscripted to work for the Pentagon and then was murdered by poison when he hoisted a toast to success powering Army Tanks with the hydrogen in water.

///////////////////// - $1 DVDs shipped - email for info

Great to see the word

Great to see the word getting spread around. For those interested in experiments being conducted by freelancer's and tinkerer's (Both Edison and Tesla were such...) please check out There are photos, forums, and tutorials on how to build things such as your own hydrobooster(it will reduce gas consumption and make the Internal combustion engine run better.). There are also stand alone water systems some people are trying to mimic similar to what Stan Meyer's made. Ain't it something how he died....poisoned?

Check it out. We the people can free ourselves from these shackles of big energy!

"... In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." (Galileo Galilei, 1564 - 1642)

Show "Flighting for just enough 911truth to preserve national security" by theSaiGirl