More impossible ‘eyewitness’ accounts of 9/11: Renaud and McIntyre

By Craig McKee (http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com)

One of the most bizarre and unbelievable accounts given by anyone with TV network connections on Sept. 11, 2001 was that of Theresa Renaud, described as the wife of CBS Early Show producer Jack Renaud.

Renaud was recounting live on CBS how she had been at her window and had heard the North Tower explosion. While telling the story, she sees the second alleged impact. Her account of that, live, was very revealing.

Before that second impact, she explained to host Bryant Gumbel that her office building in Chelsea looked “directly on to” the towers (even though it was several miles north). She described how her building was the tallest in the area, giving her a good view of the World Trade Center.

Renaud described the first impact this way: “I would say that approximately 10 minutes ago there was a major explosion from, probably it looks like from the 80th floor, it looks like it’s affected probably four to eight floors, major flames are coming out of the, let’s see, the north side and also the east side of the building, yes.”

Gumbel then asks her if she heard the explosion. She continues: “Oh yes, yes we did as a matter of fact, in fact we did hear because I was standing there pretty much standing looking out the window. I didn’t see what caused it or if there was an impact.”

She didn’t see what caused it. She heard an explosion (not clear if she saw it, too), but she didn’t know if there was an “impact.” So far, so good.

She is apparently still looking at the towers during the interview – then the second plane apparently hits. Here’s where it gets better:

“Oh there’s another one, another plane just hit! Oh my God, another plane has just hit another building! It flew right into the middle of it! Explosion!”

One second she has no idea what caused the first explosion (specifically saying she didn’t know if there was an impact), and the next second she is saying that ANOTHER plane has hit ANOTHER building.

By the way, the second plane came from the south, hitting the south side of the building. She saw it hit “in the middle of it” from her location several miles north. Hmm.

So, what could have caused her to say this? Could there be an innocent explanation? What would that be, exactly?

Given that so many media-connected people were almost instantly available to report live from the vicinity of the World Trade Center that morning, the whole thing is very suspicious. I don’t believe her account was genuine. The content was unbelievable, and so was the delivery.

There’s also a moment when she tells Gumbel that she’s sure the plane hit the building on purpose. Naturally, he asks why she thinks this.

“It’s because… it just… it just flew straight into it. There’s not… it didn’t look like it was… ah… and it didn’t look like a commercial jet. It was a smaller plane. It was definitely a smaller plane.”

She wasn’t the only witness who said on TV that day that it was definitely not a commercial jet. I’m not sure how she could be so sure of that being miles away and on the wrong side of the building.

Renaud was working for Deutsch Inc. in a huge building at 111 8th Ave. in Chelsea, a few miles north of the World Trade Center. Many of the TV pictures we saw on 9/11 were shot from the north and from some distance away. The perspective has been compared to the view from 111 8th Ave., and they look very similar. In fact, CBS showed a view that could easily have come from Chelsea.

But there’s no proof that her view was the same or that any images were shot from a location in this building. It is tempting to wonder given the building’s current use.

The building, built in 1932, has been a major telecommunications hub since the late 1990s. The web site for the structure describes it as one of the world’s “most wired” buildings. It offers 2.9 million square feet of office and telecommunications space, including 500,000 square feet occupied by Google.

Let’s give Theresa a break and look at another controversial account. Jamie McIntyre of CNN stated what he had seen on 9/11, but later changed his tune. At first he said:

“From my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane crashing anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual side of the building that’s crashed in. The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large sections, wing sections, fuselage or anything like that anywhere around.”

On a later occasion, he said, “I was there on September 11, and I saw the wreckage of a plane, including large pieces.”

He later addressed the impression that he had originally questioned whether a plane had really hit the Pentagon:

“From my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on an eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicating there was no crash site near the pentagon, only at the Pentagon.”

Why would stories start one way and then morph into accounts that mesh beautifully with the official conspiracy theory (see my last post about Mike Walter)? Did they think we wouldn’t notice?

just wondering

What is the point of this thread? Of course there will be eye witnesses who state contradictory and controversial things - that is just the way humans behave. It proves nothing. Can't we just focus on the scientific evidence?

No room for other angles?

So because eyewitnesses sometimes say controversial things, we should not question when they appear to be lying? I never said it proved anything, but not everything ever said about 9/11 has to constitute irrefutable proof of something. Sometimes anomalies can give us clues about where to investigate further, and what's wrong with that? Should we ignore Bush's repeated contention that he saw the first plane hit the WTC on TV? He was just "mistaken"? Maybe so, but are you saying it shouldn't be brought up unless it PROVES something?

Can't we...

Also focus on the ENORMOUS amount of data that proves conclusively beyond the shadow of doubt that there is a cover-up for 9/11, and requires no PHD background?

Why not focus on both?

Has the Journal Of 9/11 Studies not facilitated the debunking of harmful theories with scientific scrutiny? What about Jim Hoffman? Didn't this science-focused part of this movement help you defuse disinformation? Did their readers need PHDs?

I embrace both, and there can exist a fruitful cross-pollination between the two. So, if you mean that 'also' part, I agree with you.

I will note that many of the subjects you broach require a deep knowledge of the historiography of 9/11, the people, the places, the events, as well as the inner workings of governments, commissions and investigations, law, economy and politics.

Why are so many people fooled by the Pentagon no plane crash theory? Merely because Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis are 'mean'? Or because their research is pseudoscientific and the 9/11 Truth Movement is ill-equipped to expose it as such because we pigeon-hole and stereotype science as elitist and beyond the reach of the average Joe?

The people interested in science will walk away from this site, and I don't want that to happen. I want us all to join forces.

I am not...

One of the MANY individuals who repeatedly say "can't we just focus on the scientific evidence." The "science" aspect of 9/11 has taken over this cause. You shouldn't have to be a scholar, a scientist, an engineer, a physicist, a PHD, etc... to understand the need for 9/11 Justice.

Golden mean

It's not productive to project one's own shortcomings in one particular area of expertise as a problem of the entire Truth Movement.

Of course you don't have to be any of these things to understand the need for 9/11 justice. But you don't have to be an English professor like Peter Dale Scott either, or a terrorism and geostrategy expert like Nafeez Ahmed, or a detective like Mike Ruppert. I get the feeling you favor one area of specialist expertise over the other.

What about the dust studies and the medical studies supporting the fact that the first responders were effectively poisoned by WTC dust? Are they too scientific for us to understand? What about the Journal of 9/11 Studies debunking mini-nukes, directed energy weapons, holograms and video fakery? Too scientific? Or rather of the utmost importance for the credibility of this movement?

I partially attribute the recent rift over the Pentagon attack to an unwillingness to tackle the scientific errors in the no plane crash theory head on. Instead, those asking questions were told to spend their time investigating more important things, which they reflexively rejected. We are trying to you help out here too, Jon, by scrutinizing the validity of the theories that require scientific inquiry to resolve.

Meanwhile, I wholeheartedly agree with you that the study of other, extremely important topics has suffered.. the failure to defend the skies is one, the material at History Commons is another, the cover-up, insider trading, prior knowledge, energy policy meetings, dereliction of duty, the Mineta incident, military exercises, Able Danger, Ali Mohamed, links to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Israel, and most importantly, the study of Al Qaeda itself, whose very existence is questioned to the point inquiry is deemed redundant. The lead-up to 9/11: Kevin Fenton comes to mind. Also Jimd3100 has been blowing us away with his research. The folks at History Commons used to post updates here, but I can't remember a recent post, I would like to see that again.

I think the best way to ameliorate that situation is to just do what Shoestring does: post comprehensive footnoted research here. Your facts list is awesome, but you have more to offer, in my opinion, your forum is chock full of sources and research material just begging to represented in blog articles? More background information on In Their Own Words and Press For Truth? I would welcome that, and I think so would everyone else.

So, rather than proposing the other extreme, there is a golden mean.

I think it's sad...

That Journal of 9/11 Studies spent ANY time on mini-nukes, directed energy weapons (jesus christ), holograms and video fakery. Common sense should have been enough. I hope their next order of business isn't the Clandestine Remote Controlled Anti-Gravity Ball.

Perhaps

but I think the amount of time they spend on a particular meme depends on its proliferation. It's like garden weeds, if you don't attend to them and weed them out they will eventually clutter up the entire garden.

I trust the Clandestine Remote Controlled Anti-Gravity Ball crap is so frivolous it will never gain any traction. I would be very, very disappointed otherwise. The same, back then, couldn't be said for video fakery, let alone the 'missile at the Pentagon' theory. Now, we've got 'flyover', something I believe threatens the entire existence of the 9/11 Truth Movement, and Dr. Legge is gentlemanly attending to it, as well as others. Not doing so would exasperate the problem, in my opinion. I understand your frustration, Jon.

I said...

Video Fakery, and a missile at the Pentagon, etc... and so on were frivolous from day one. I have never needed any of the "science based" arguments for this cause. I don't think you can begin to understand my frustration.

I stand next to you

besides I like science refuting the oct also.

You don't need science to know it was an inside job. The cover-up alone proves it. Or the research by shoestring. Or the many, many anomalies of behaviour that day. The foreknowledge. Anything.

Golden Mean... that's a great way to put it

A little science-y though! ;)

Very well put and your thoughts on the matter reflect my own.

It was

wasn't it? ;-)

Thanks, I appreciate it.

Yes we can!

Jon, you asked above whether we could: "Also focus on the ENORMOUS amount of data that proves conclusively beyond the shadow of doubt that there is a cover-up for 9/11, and requires no PHD background?"

Yes we can! There are many arguments we can present to bring the truth to people of various backgrounds and ways of thinking. So it isn't a question of which is the best argument. We need them all.

What we don't need is people digging up and baldly posting material which is partly good and partly rubbish and presenting it in a public arena such as 9/11 Blogger. If this sort of material is to be published it should be accompanied by a review which shows which parts are good and which parts are rubbish. Without such a review the post does more harm than good and wastes time and energy, as we see in this thread.

There are lots

of things that could be said in response, but since you don't have the courtesy to make available and cite your sources, so that we may see them in context, there is no point in doing so.

Could Renaud have been alerted either by a TV or

other person in the room that the first hit was an airplane, while at the same time talking to Gumbel? If not then it is suspicious even if it's not science. McIntyre most likely did not initially see significant evidence of a plane crash at the pentagon, why because to the unscientific observer it didn't look like one. There was no large Jumbo Jet on the front lawn sticking into the buiding was there. Afterward the official story is not something you want to question if you work for CNN is it? So even if your initial perception may be somewhat troubling you will find a way to cover your butt. These are my thoughts on what I feel are fair and legitimate questions. I can't decode black boxes however I would like to continue discussion of unscientific yet relevant questions of human nature/behavior.

Old, boring and debunked

From the blog entry above......

"On a later occasion, he said, “I was there on September 11, and I saw the wreckage of a plane, including large pieces.”

"He later addressed the impression that he had originally questioned whether a plane had really hit the Pentagon:"

“From my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on an eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicating there was no crash site near the pentagon, only at the Pentagon.”

"Why would stories start one way and then morph into accounts that mesh beautifully with the official conspiracy theory (see my last post about Mike Walter)? Did they think we wouldn’t notice?"

It's only been like 9 years now and pentagon no planers still can't figure this out so let's go real slow......

On 9-11 Jamie McIntyre reported on a plane crashing INTO the pentagon. He NEVER had any doubt that a plane crashed INTO the pentagon. He was ASKED if A plane crashed NEAR the pentagon. He reported that NO...no plane crashed NEAR the pentagon....a plane did crash INTO the pentagon, a plane did NOT crash NEAR the pentagon a plane DID crash INTO the pentagon.

So...if I was a dishonest pentagon no planer conspiracy theorist...I will simply edit this footage after the point where he is asked the question if a plane crashed NEAR the pentagon, and then claim this proves a plane did not crash INTO the pentagon,. and then lie again and claim that he "changed" his story later. He didn't change his story.... so called "truthers" who refuse to admit that planes crashed into buildings on 9-11 changed his story for him, proving the 9-11 truth movement is really a 9-11 lie movement. That is a very good way of destroying a "truth" movement and obviously it was very effective.....because even after I show the evidence of this to pentagon no planer conspiracy theorists it simply will not matter..........

Jamie McIntyre:
"MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take STATEMENTS OUT OF CONTEXT, such as this exchange from CNN in which I -- myself -- appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere NEAR the Pentagon. In fact, I was ANSWERING A QUESTION based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed SHORT of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site NEAR the pentagon only AT the Pentagon."

"MCINTYRE: In fact there were THOUSANDS of tiny pieces of the PLANE, and I personally photographed a piece of the fuselage and what appeared to be part of the cockpit."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/05/16/transcript.wed/

Now let's take a look at the UNEDITED clip, and we can all see that HE IS TELLING THE TRUTH, and no planers edited this clip at the 2:50 mark just after that question was asked in order to decieve people.....about time to face reality isn't it?

unedited clip of Jamie Mcintyre.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjlBpChvzD8

The edited clip (edited just after the question was asked about it crashing NEAR the pentagon at the 2:50 mark from unedited clip) giving no planers their fake evidence for their no plane conspiracy fantasy.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck "which would indicate that the ENTIRE PLANE crashed INTO the side of the pentagon"

So for those that still fall for this BS......

How does it feel to be manipulated?
Now go ahead and get mad at me instead of the people who deceived you into believing this no plane nonsense.

Nowhere in his report does it significantly support

the official story in my opinion. He says: " The only pieces left that you can see are small enough to pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage nothing like that anywhere around that would indicate the entire plane crashed into the side of the pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. Now even though if you look at the pictures of the pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed that didn't happen immediately . It wasn't until almost 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed."

Regarding your claim of manipulation and editing of the video :
At the start of the interview he makes a comment that the largest plane part he saw was about three feet long.
So if just stick with his comments in that report of the event I personally feel it doesn't strongly support the official story. Now a 757 may have made this incredible approach and shattered into the pentagon but MacIntyre's report on 911 does not make it an airtight case by any stretch of his words in that report.

Like I said....

"because even after I show the evidence of this to pentagon no planer conspiracy theorists it simply will not matter.........."

That of course is becaue

he was outside the Pentagon, not inside, where most of the plane finished up, including ALL the large heavy parts.

He incontestably supports the plane hit the Pentagon theory. Just like Sgt Lagasse. Just like Turcios. Just like Hemphill. etc

And of course April Gallop was mistaken

Right? And she was in the pentagon. And when I point out fairly that the actual news report is lacking, well then you act like you were there and of course know the whole story. And if someone has doubts about the official story at the pentagon because the official story everywhere else doesn't hold water, well then they are just boring. What is getting boring is this "elite" Only allowed site for 911 truth, That's what getting boring. I have watched you "experts" chase a good many well meaning people away from this site and in my opinion it is not only unproductive................it stinks.........So keep pretending you're just the good guys and you know it all!

Some people were "fooled" alright

peacefulwarrior said..."And if someone has doubts about the official story at the pentagon because the official story everywhere else doesn't hold water, well then they are just boring. What is getting boring is this "elite" Only allowed site for 911 truth, That's what getting boring. I have watched you "experts" chase a good many well meaning people away from this site and in my opinion it is not only unproductive................it stinks.........So keep pretending you're just the good guys and you know it all!"

Again..like I said earlier because yes, this is old boring and predictable, it's been 9 years of the same BS......

"Now go ahead and get mad at me instead of the people who deceived you into believing this no plane nonsense."

April Gallop:
She is correct. She didn't see a plane hit the building. Neither did anyone else inside the building including Brian Birdwell who almost died from Jet fuel in his lungs. Are his lungs mistaken?

"The doctor told him that had he not gone to Georgetown first, he probably would not have survived because of the jet fuel in his lungs."

http://usma1961.westpointaog.com/BirdwellLuncheon.htm

And April Gallop didn't notice plane parts...blah blah...why would she be looking for plane parts when she had no idea a plane blasted into the building? She was looking for her kid and was focused on getting out. The people looking for plane parts were the rescue crews that went in and cleaned up the mess, and found the black boxes. ....along with the plane parts and dead bodies

http://www.amazon.com/Firefight-Inside-Battle-Save-Pentagon/dp/0891419055

Of course they were all mistaken right?

"When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/sept01/2001-09-14-pentagon-usat.htm

Was he mistaken? Maybe the people "fooled" weren't the ones that watched the plane hit the building. Or the rescue crews who cleaned up the mess, or the ATC who saw this on radar, or the witnesses who saw this in person. Perhaps...just perhaps the ones that are mistaken are pentagon no planers? Tough call huh?

So April Gallop insisted she did not see any

plane wreckage and heard an explosion, insisted she knew the sound of an explosion and resisted harrassment in the hospital to change her story because....................? Brian Birdwell makes no mention of seeing plane parts and a doctor says he had jet fuel in his lungs..........and it didn't explode on impact but he was close enough to be infected and I am sure you can explain that right? Williams claims to have seen several passengers in their seats so that seals it right there of course? As far as eyewitnesses many people still think that Airplanes knocked down the towers and they saw it happen. In the end a plane maybe even a 757 (AA77) did hit the pentagon and was remotely controlled so that it could make this exceptional approach and really did smatter into a million pieces thru a relatively small hole but at the end of the day I am not 100% sure that it did. OK? If your 100% sure then good for you. Peace.