The Clearer We Thought We Saw 9/11, The Easier We Were To Fool

San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center.

International | Police State and Prisons

The clearer we thought we saw 9/11, the easier we were to fool

by Craig McKee
Sunday Oct 31st, 2010 5:07 PM


The greatest thing keeping us from the truth is our lack of willingness to look for it.
You’d have to think it would be just about impossible to deceive the world about a catastrophic event like 9/11 because everything happened in broad daylight in front of thousands of people wouldn’t you?

But maybe it’s just the opposite. Maybe it’s the fact that thousands saw it in person and millions watched it over and over on TV that has made it so easy for us to be fooled. The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it, as Hitler said.

Most of us are desperate to believe what we’re told. We think that if we question everything we see and hear, then we’ll never know what’s real and what’s not. This fact is taken advantage of by those who seek to deceive us. They manipulate us and we let them.

And people who do question are marginalized by being called “conspiracy theorists.” With those fringe people out of the way, the rest of us can remain smug and complacent.

There were thousands of eyewitnesses to the collapse of the World Trade Center and the crash at the Pentagon on Sept. 11. Millions more followed the events on TV. The media led us straight to the official story. They didn’t question and neither did we.

Firefighters described massive explosions in World Trade Center basements.

They talked about explosions and controlled demolition on the morning of 9/11, but once the official story was given to them by the Bush administration, they confined themselves to that.

The only thing ruining our little fantasy is that facts reveal it all to be a lie. Don’t you hate it when the truth ruins a good story?

The same thing goes for eyewitnesses. We just assume they’re telling us what they saw to the best of their ability. But what if some of them had other agendas?

One very celebrated “eyewitness” was an unidentified man who has become known as the “Harley shirt guy.” He was interviewed on Fox News about the collapse of the towers.

"...and then I witnessed both towers collapse, one first then the second, mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense."

No need for an investigation with smart witnesses like this guy. I know bad acting when I see it, and there’s no doubt in my mind that this guy was a plant. Check him out on You Tube, and you may agree.

Who, in the heat of this traumatic event, would say “mostly due to structural failure”? It reminds me of George W. saying that he saw the first plane hit the tower on TV just before going into a Florida classroom for a reading session with some kids. “The TV was obviously on,” he said to explain how he saw the event – on TV. Thanks for clarifying that, George.

When people are giving a truthful account, they don’t say things like that.

Some feel they’ve successfully identified the witness I mentioned as being actor Mark Humphrey. He is best known, at least among Canadians, for his role in the show ENG (appropriately, this stands for Electronic News Gathering), which aired in the early 1990s.

There may be a strong resemblance, but I can say with certainty that the “structural failure” guy is not Mark Humphrey. But even with the interview on video tape, most are not sure. Humphrey has had to account for his whereabouts on that day to prove he’s not part of a conspiracy. He’s not, but I think the other guy may have been.

Is the idea of fake witnesses so far-fetched? If you can consider that the government may have been behind 9/11, why wouldn’t they also plant “witnesses” to reinforce the official story. In fact, they’d be kind of dumb if they didn’t. And they know that anyone who questions whether there were plants on that day is going to be called paranoid and a kook.

In general, the eyewitness accounts on 9/11 have run the gamut. One of the many witnesses who claimed to have seen Flight 77 hit the Pentagon was Steve Anderson, the communications director for USA Today. He said that it was flying so low that it actually hit the ground first, its engines dragging along the ground. Problem is the Pentagon lawn was undamaged. Did this guy imagine it? Who knows, but he was wrong.

It is interesting and suspicious that so many eyewitnesses worked either for the federal government or the mainstream media. Within five minutes of the first tower being hit, all the major networks seemed to have executives of their network describing the scene. They all just happened to be in the area when the plane hit. This is certainly a topic for a future article.

Then there are witnesses whose accounts contradict the official story. For instance, there are witnesses who say they saw an airliner fly over the Pentagon as a huge explosion took place. In fact that would fit well with the fact that the Flight Data Recorder allegedly found in the Pentagon wreckage showed that the plane would have been too high to hit the building. You won’t hear from these witnesses on the networks.

Firefighters and Word Trade Center employees have talked in detail about loud and very destructive explosions in the basements of the towers before they fell. These people made it on to TV on the morning of 9/11 but rarely after that.

Same goes for the testimony of Barry Jennings, the emergency co-ordinator of the City of New York’s housing authority, and Michael Hess, the city’s corporation counsel. Both described being trapped in Building 7 before either tower had fallen. They experienced major explosions in the building that destroyed the lobby. No one has explained these explosions.

Some have talked about seeing airliners hit the buildings, some have said that they looked more like military planes. At the Pentagon, some described airliners, some saw a small commuter plane hit the building. We can’t discount anyone’s account, but neither should we blindly accept what we’re fed.

Yes, it all happened in broad daylight. Yes, the whole world was watching. And yes, it’s a lot easier to imagine foreign enemies attacking us than to believe it’s the very people we trust to protect us.

Perhaps the best place to hide the truth is in plain sight.
Add Your Comments

© 2000–2010 San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the SF Bay Area IMC. Disclaimer | Privacy | Contact

This article is filled with baseless conjecture

There is no proof provided here for witness's being actors. This is a terrible piece which is nothing but speculation and is insulting to the people who had to witness these horrible events in person.

You should

see his hit piece on Mike Walter.

Oh My God

Just read this. Awful indeed. Both of these Craig Mckee articles are offensive and baseless. It makes me sick to my stomach watching people accuse witness's of lying. And of course just like CIT and the RCFP, the flyover theory is another big focus of these divisive individuals (Ranke, Mckee) and groups.

The fly-over and "fake witness" theories (and the groups I mentioned above) have simply been debunked and discredited.

Sad to see this article coming out of my city in San Francisco. It will unfortunately come off to the intellectuals in SF as just what it is, so conspiratorial and speculative that it is not worth their time. The article also, of course, will convince more people in SF and anywhere else it is spread, that 'people who ask questions about 9/11 are generally conspiracy theorists who assert unprovable claims which are easy to debunk, many of which are insulting to the victims of the attack, and are wacky and believe there was no plane etc.'

Time to be more critical and stick to facts we can prove. We don't need hyper-speculation disguised and reported as fact, especially if completely unprovable.

Mike Walter fan club?

I am the author of the "offensive and baseless" articles, and I'm a bit confused. Is it unacceptable to question whether there could have been untruthful witnesses? Must one have absolute proof before raising the question? I pointed out the fact that there are many conflicting eyewitness accounts. We need to consider the ones that don't back up the official story as well.
I focused on Mike Walter because his remarks are almost impossible to reconcile. He says his view is obstructed, then he describes the wings folding in. And you don't believe he's lying? I'm sorry if some of you find it impolite to say something like this, but this was a day of deception. People have lied. I think Mike Walter is one of those. I don't know why. What's wrong with a vigorous debate on the subject? What's wrong with challenging the accounts of some members of the media. This is the same media that refuses to ask many critical and obvious questions. They have no problem blaming Osama bin Laden for the attacks even though they have no proof.

OFF Topic...a question for pfgetty?

Why do you continue to blog here when you are now blogging at the "superior" site (by your friends assessment) ? By the way don't say anything against them as it leads to instant deleting with out explanation see: .

Just thought you might have some integrity? Obviously not...

Regards John


Sort of an interesting piece.

Not to open an old wound, but look at this:

"Then there are witnesses whose accounts contradict the official story. For instance, there are witnesses who say they saw an airliner fly over the Pentagon as a huge explosion took place. In fact that would fit well with the fact that the Flight Data Recorder allegedly found in the Pentagon wreckage showed that the plane would have been too high to hit the building. You won’t hear from these witnesses on the networks."

How can the Flight Data Recorder show a fly-over, yet be found in the building wreckage?

Please don't try to answer that. Not worth it.


how was the JFK magic bullet found on a hospital gurney?

some will say that's exactly where it should have been found.

others have compared the grassy knoll to WTC7,
Funny how news and first hand witness reports of additional bombs in the Murrah building and the WTC's seem to be overlooked, interesting.
What about extra bullets found at the RFK slaughter, and the bullet wound angle from the rear, interesting.,
What ever is going on you have to admit it sure keeps life interesting.........with lots of the good guys put into a permanant state of resting.


I believe "The Harley guy" was a plant. His description was just a bit too lucid and coincided with the OCT all too well. The fact he was never identified and hasn't come forward only adds to the mystery.

The accusations and guilt by MSM of the pentagon witnesses and the poor attempt at pushing "flyover" only exposes his ignorance, lack of research, and/or willingness to continue perpetuating flawed and divisive theories.

If it weren't for that passage, it seemed to be a pretty good article. thx for sharing.


Pentagon fly-over

Re: "How can the Flight Data Recorder show a fly-over, yet be found in the building wreckage?"
This is exactly the point of what I wrote.
The Flight Data Recorder was allegedly found in the Pentagon wreckage. The problem is that it indicated that the plane was too high to have hit the Pentagon, that its trajectory was such that it would have missed the light poles anyway, and that the cockpit door never opened during the flight. All of this supports the idea that the plane flew over, while an explosion occurred in the building to misdirect people. No this isn't proof of that, but the information in the data recorder has to be explained.
I devoted an entire post in September to the FDR on


We sure do need a valid investigation of all this.

If, as you say

the black box is a fraud that disproves itself by showing the plane flew too high and on a path that would miss the light poles, you cannot then say this fraud is supporting flyover or anything else.

The question is where did this "black box" come from

if indeed it's the right black box from flight 77 then that plane didn't crash into the pentagon. It doesn't mean a plane didn't crash into the pentagon but what happened to flight 77? It can't be the right box and the right plane. Or am I missing something that would prove it was from flight 77 which hit the pentagon.

IF indeed it's the right black box from flight 77

The biggest little word in the English language "if".

If we are to believe what the government gives us.

There was a data entry 4 days before the file was given to P4T. Has that ever been cleared up?

Someone backtracked and found that there was no airport where the plane started. Has that been proven wrong?



It is perfectly true that the animation handed out by the NTSB had the plane coming in north of Citgo, and therefore coming in at the wrong angle, according to the many eye witnesses. Naturally, if you follow something back which has been set at the wrong angle, you will not find the beginning where it is supposed to be.

There is no such problem with the FDR file and never has been. The only thing wrong with the FDR file was that the last few seconds appeared to be missing, as was ably pointed out long ago.

It seems there is a need to present a few facts which may have escaped the attention of those looking into the Pentagon attack. The NTSB actually handed out three files.

1. The FDR file itself. This file could not be read without special software. It was eventually decoded and found to finish too high and descending too steeply to have done the observed damage.

2. The CSV file. This file was intended for the public and could be read by anyone. It can be displayed using Excel. Naturally such a file could be easily manipulated. It corresponded with the FDR file but had many columns of data missing and the time line was different by 4 seconds.

3. The animation. This was clearly wrong as its heading was wrong. Staring the viewer in the face, in the animation, is the compass. The compass has a different heading. They couldn't both be right. Was one of them right? Yes. The compass agreed with the eye witnesses, the trail of damage, the FDR file and the CSV file. There appears to be no reason to doubt the authenticity of the animation except for the heading error. It provides an easy way to comprehend the motion of the plane. It is easy to see that the plane's behaviour becomes erratic after the hijacking occurs. Like the files, it finishes too early.

Now the FDR file has been fully decoded and shown to correspond with the official account and the many eyewitnesses who saw the impact.

Interesting info

"The only thing wrong with the FDR file was that the last few seconds appeared to be missing, as was ably pointed out long ago."

The last few seconds are missing from the Shanksville black box too. Is this normal or abnormal?

"FDR file . . . . . . found to finish too high and descending too steeply to have done the observed damage."

It could have missed the light poles [flown above them and/or to the side] and hit the Pentagon from the last known position ???

ETA: My point here is: The last known location precludes the plane hitting the light poles but does not preclude the plane hitting the Pentagon, or even suggest the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

How certain is it that the FDR data is genuine?

New decoding makes a difference


You don't seem to be up with the news. You say: "The last known location precludes the plane hitting the light poles but does not preclude the plane hitting the Pentagon..."

The last known position of the plane, according to the FDR file, is inside the Pentagon at near ground level. The approach to the Pentagon is so low it must have hit the poles, as the damage shows. See the post below.

News to me

This is the first time I have heard that. Who did the analysis and what is the source URL please?

AA77 FDR analysis

This analysis was done by Warren Stutt.

His first achievement was to decode the last four seconds of data in the FDR file and thereby show that the claim that the FDR file proves the official flight path false is false.

He has recently found out why the last four seconds was not previously decoded.

A paper on this subject is currently under peer review.

Thank you very much

Please keep us posted on the progress.

Decoding FDR data

requires that:

1) You know exactly which model of FDR was used

2) You have the correct version of the decoding software for the FDR

3) You have made all the necessary corrections/adjustments/transpositions for altitude, etc.

Once you have verified that all of this is correct and/or has been done, then you will have a good idea of exactly where the plane was.

Add to this that you need to match a serial number off of the FDR to records from AA77 (N644AA) to know that you are starting with the correct FDR.

To the best of my knowledge none of this has been done.

However, I do believe someone is in the process of doing most of this and writing it up in a paper.

Yet another wild goose chase at the Pentagon.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

A strange array of opinions

You would think on 9/11 Blogger that there would by now be more understanding of what we know and don't know about the Pentagon attack.

It appears that some people do not know that the FDR data file, when properly decoded, shows the plane descending smoothly, pulling up safely and hitting the Pentagon fair and square, exactly where the eye witnesses and the photos of the damage place it.

Of course we will never get the serial numbers unless there is a revolution in the way the authorities provide reports, but we do have the FDR data. Let us stop making this unfounded case that the FDR refutes the official flight path.

There are so many things wrong with the official account of the Pentagon attack that we have plenty of ammunition. Kevin Ryan listed them recently. We should not muddy the debate with nonsense.