Support 911Blogger


'Harley guy' identity confirmed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07hJhmiWZSY

Until recently many members of the 'truth movement' were guilty of speculating wildly as to the identity of this guy (nicknamed 'the harley guy').

From the recent appearance of this extended video clip, we know him to be Mark Walsh, and is apparently a freelancer for FOX.

Personally I'd love to know where he was getting his information from when he casually states ...
"... mainly due to structural failure because the fires were just too intense."

If anyone knows him, or can track him down, it would be really interesting to get him to comment.
We don't need to accuse anyone of being an insider. Potentially, as a freelancer for FOX, he could have been briefed on what to say without being part of a conspiracy.

Interesting

Thanks.

WTC 7's up and coming collapse is also discussed. Even more interesting.

The reporter says, near the end: "There's evidence out here, there's a lot of work left to be done."

Indeed.

Speculation.

"... mainly due to structural failure because the fires were just too intense."

It's a bit of a stretch to presume "harley guy" was doing anything more than knee jerk speculation. He was obviously excited and was just shooting from the hip. I defy anyone to plan their reaction and measure their words with forethought when in a state of anxiety, excitement and stress.
Any suggestion that he had foreknowledge and was "planting a conclusion" that would fit the official story is a weak argument and undermines the credibility of the "truth movement." Especially when there is so much good evidence such as building 7.

but...

Isn't it the point of this post to try to find out more about the man and to end the speculation?

Isn't it important to accumulate the most evidence possible? So why not try to find out about this man?

I do think it is pretty surprising that he explains the collapse at that moment on that day as if it was a certainty, when so many journalists and witnesses has told the public that bombs went off. So many policemen and firemen saying there could be more bombs going off, that secondary devices were heard... And now that those new videos makes us hear explosions and show us evidence of explosives, I think it's even more intriguing that he is so convinced about what he says.

Even his phrasing sounds planned and almost rehearsed. Still, yes, it is speculation at this point to say he was planting a story, but it is a very credible scenario when you look at the evolution of the coverage on that day.

I agree with you it's impossible to know what our reaction would be in such an extreme situation, but I don't feel anxiety, excitement nor stress in this man's behavior. Maybe I am wrong. But I still think it's worth trying to find out more.

I agree Le Lys

The way Harley guy is so emphatic and appears so certain that he knows the cause of the building collapses was structural failure because the fire was just too intense doesn't ring true to me at all. As you said, there was lots of talk of bombs at the time and speculation by some commentators that perhaps bombs had been planted in the buildings because they collapsed so suddenly and completely. But Harley guy knows for sure it was those "intense fires" that did the buildings in. It does sound like he was primed by someone to make this speech, and this little on-air exposition within a couple of hours of the attacks does conveniently help to maintain the pattern Peter Dale Scott has remarked on whereby in these "deep" events the fake cover story is laid out and the patsies who will take the fall presented to the sheeple very early on in the process. See Scott's talk JFK & 9/11 - Insights Gained From Studying Both: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBozfOm9ngY

Straw house.

My point is just that with all the solid verifiable evidence and unanswered, this is unsubstantial.
Why build your house (case) with straw when concrete holds up stronger and longer?

Kneejerk speculation vc. guided accompanied official version

It may be possible that there is nothing sinister behind such a sentence. But we should not forget that the real perps want a hidden demolition in plain sight and that they took over to silence every unfitting eyewitness and evidence. It doesn't necessarily mean that all were briefed openly, you can bring one to say something without telling him directly...

So we have Mark Walsh, Doug Eisler, Bob Kerik, Paul Bremer, Jerry Hauer, at least the latter three should be examinied with scrutiny. As Kevin Ryan suggested in his latest radio appearance. There may be more to it.

I forgot

Garrick Utley, a Bush family friend, who was the first on tv promoting "melting of steel" on CNN, very little after 3.am on the morning on 9-12.

This is a lead...Who the hell was his source for this "misinfo"? (wrong for the oct, but right at the end!)

investigating something isn't

investigating something isn't the same as pointing the finger.

Personally I find it unlikely he is a 'plant' or actor or anything like that. But it is a remarkable co-incidence he should understand the official narrative on the cause of the collapse so early on.

In my mind there enough signs of a media infiltration to warrant a serious investigation into where people like these are getting their information from. As well as this we have the unusual forknowledge of wtc 7s collapse littered all over the mainstream media (even the bbc reporting of it before it happened.. are we to assume that was just a natural emotional reaction to the events of the day??!). Possibly a handful of people at Associated Press and Reuters were feeding a pre-prepared version of events to news stations.

Due care

Don't worry, unlike (some) others have done in the past, you've taken due care in your blog article to not go overboard on the speculative, accusatory side. I appreciate it.

How it might have occurred

I don't know how useful this is, but it interested me, as it made more sense to me than some of the other possibilities I've seen suggested.

I found this in a recent comment posted in a thread on YouTube. The commenter began by saying that Mark Walsh once had a short-lived podcast, back around 2006-09. He went on to give his recollections of Walsh's account of his TV appearance on the morning of 9/11 (though, unfortunately, without providing a clip to back them up). Here they are, with some ellipses added:

'Anyway, Mark then went on to explain why he said what he said. According to him FOX news, after the planes hit, set up outside of his apartment. He knew one of the guys, so he hung out with them while the shit went down.. After the towers fell, the FOX guys told him the reason/explained why the building collapsed.
THATS WHY he is telling the story the way he is.....He is repeating the story they all just talked about minutes before, He talks that way because he knows the news guy already knows the story.
Point being....FOX had the OV first....The question is who told FOX, not how did Mark know.'

So if he was 'rehearsed,' perhaps it was a kind of 'rehearsing' that was more informal than how we typically think of it; so that, at the time, it might not have seemed so much to him as if he were being rehearsed.

What exactly is going on here isn't clear:

Mark Walsh is a freelancer for FOX news? What does that mean? Is he some kind of professional associate? Does he have a professional background in reporting? He certainly appears to report his "observations" in a somewhat rehearsed manner. His conclusions about the cause of the collapse of both towers seems too pat and he also appears too sure of himself. Why is he so sure ? If he was just speculating about his own thoughts I think the choice of words would be different. Most disturbing is that he appears to lack real emotion in this situation. This guy is more than ready to "report" his story isn't he. Why is the reporter talking about the collapse of another building? He must have heard that from someone I would presume. It would be interesting to know who?

The American Bar Association journal shows this:

From ABA Journal...

"Mark Walsh is a freelance writer for the ABA Journal, covering the U.S. Supreme Court. He also writes for Education Week and has appeared as a commentator for C-SPAN, Court TV, Fox News, National Public Radio and BBC Radio."

That web page also shows a number of his recent articles. And it shows his photo. Presumably it's the same Mark Walsh? If so, he is older (of course) and -- sorry to mention this, Mark -- lots fatter now, going by this photo.

Not so speculative to question this guy's behavior

Body movement and statement analysis experts could most likely reveal significant reasons for what our instincts tell us is wrong about this interview.
At 59 seconds the reporter puts his hand on Walsh's shoulder as he identifies him and he immediately shakes his head. At 1:08 he says in a staccato tone with voice and hand gestures in authoritative mode that he saw the event "from beginning to end". How did he even know what the beginning and end actually was. Some have commented that there are no universal expressions which is not true. Universal grief and shock are well documented across cultures and even in the animal kingdom. This guy has no expression of either. He doesn't say he was terrified and wondered if more planes were comming perhaps hitting his building nothing but what appears to be a well rehearsed agenda to decribe the OCT. At 1:22 he goes from Witness to expert with the added spin of engineering details that could very well be a liars "tell" . At 1:36 he shakes his head no again. At 1:48 he is right up to speed calling it "ground zero". At 2:13 when he is describing people as ants again there is no concern for his own saftey, at 2:38 he crosses his body again which could be a movement to hold the lie in. There is a very limited use of pronouns like I was afraid, Oh my god, or I was wondering if this is war or should I get out of the city. Police look for this type of expressions with valid emergency witness testimony. At 2:34 when the reporter refers to the "wake up call" he seems to follow up with a canned re analysis not a human emotional response. At the end of the interview he seems to take a breath like he has finished his job.

A couple of other points: At 3:25 the man with the mask tells the reporter where to stand and directs him so who is he? The reporter obviously accepts his gesture of authority. But when he asks him what his role is the man says he can't say what his role is. Yeah I wonder why, because it's true eh? Then he says he is just standing by. I wonder why? The black guy in the suit behind Walsh during the interview also seems to be just standing by too. The reporter repeats more buildings may be collapsing due to structural failure, who said so?

Lots of clues here folks don't underestimate what your instincts are telling you about this I am sure qualified experts could shed light on the situation.

That reporter

points like george bush- the devils horns and tail thing
ooooh scary- are people showing off to each other with that or is it a masonic thing or something?
im not that bothered by whatever weird things people get up to - just found it odd, perhaps innocuous though- maybe nothing

We don't need to obsess with Harley guy i think

he's just hyper like tom cruise
if there had been a sofa there he would have jumped on it
relax, he's ok i reckon
i'm switching from my LC2e opinion of him

I used to think that this guy was a plant

Now that I see this video and know that he was a Fox stringer, it seems much more like he was trying to sound authoritative and knowledgeable in areas where he obviously has no expertise....

Just like 99% of the empty suit, talking heads we see on cable news...

In this new context it just looks like he's auditioning for the camera.

Thanks for posting this, I wondered about this guy for a long time.

Operation Mockingbird

Operation Mockingbird was the CIA's very successful operation to have cooperative journalists as their assets or even outright agents in influential positions in all major media houses, TV network news departments etc. to make sure the daily news was given the spin they wanted and their propaganda could be inserted into the news as they deemed necessary. Supposedly Operation Mockingbird was abandoned after the investigation into CIA wrongdoing by the Church Committee in 1973, but whether you can confidently believe it was or not I guess depends on how much faith you have that the CIA (or certain elements within the CIA) feel compelled to obey the law of the land.

Today, the public at large is probably mostly unaware of the Church Committee investigations and what it uncovered regarding the manipulation of the media by the CIA.

Operation Mockingbird

In 1948 Frank Wisner was appointed director of the Office of Special Projects. Soon afterwards it was renamed the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC). This became the espionage and counter-intelligence branch of the Central Intelligence Agency. Wisner was told to create an organization that concentrated on "propaganda, economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world."

Later that year Wisner established Mockingbird, a program to influence the domestic American media. Wisner recruited Philip Graham (Washington Post) to run the project within the industry. Graham himself recruited others who had worked for military intelligence during the war. This included James Truitt, Russell Wiggins, Phil Geyelin, John Hayes and Alan Barth. Others like Stewart Alsop, Joseph Alsop and James Reston, were recruited from within the Georgetown Set. According to Deborah Davis (Katharine the Great): "By the early 1950s, Wisner 'owned' respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles."

In 1951 Allen W. Dulles persuaded Cord Meyer to join the CIA. However, there is evidence that he was recruited several years earlier and had been spying on the liberal organizations he had been a member of in the later 1940s. According to Deborah Davis, Meyer became Mockingbird's "principal operative".

One of the most important journalists under the control of Operation Mockingbird was Joseph Alsop, whose articles appeared in over 300 different newspapers. Other journalists willing to promote the views of the CIA included Stewart Alsop (New York Herald Tribune), Ben Bradlee (Newsweek), James Reston (New York Times), C. D. Jackson (Time Magazine), Walter Pincus (Washington Post), William C. Baggs (Miami News), Herb Gold (Miami News) and Charles Bartlett (Chattanooga Times). According to Nina Burleigh (A Very Private Woman) these journalists sometimes wrote articles that were commissioned by Frank Wisner. The CIA also provided them with classified information to help them with their work.

snip

By analyzing CIA documents Church was able to identify over 50 U.S. journalists who were employed directly by the Agency. He was aware that there were a lot more who enjoyed a very close relationship with the CIA who were “being paid regularly for their services, to those who receive only occasional gifts and reimbursements from the CIA” (page 195).

Church pointed out that this was probably only the tip of the iceberg because the CIA refused to “provide the names of its media agents or the names of media organizations with which they are connected” (page 195). Church was also aware that most of these payments were not documented. This was the main point of the Otis Pike Report. If these payments were not documented and accounted for, there must be a strong possibility of financial corruption taking place. This includes the large commercial contracts that the CIA was responsible for distributing. Pike’s report actually highlighted in 1976 what eventually emerged in the 1980s via the activities of CIA operatives such as Edwin Wilson, Thomas Clines, Ted Shackley, Raphael Quintero, Richard Secord and Felix Rodriguez.

snip

In February, 1976, George Bush, the recently appointed Director of the CIA announced a new policy: “Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contract relationship with any full-time or part-time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station.” However, he added that the CIA would continue to “welcome” the voluntary, unpaid cooperation of journalists.

Carl Bernstein, who had worked with Bob Woodward in the investigation of Watergate, provided further information about Operation Mockingbird in an article in The Rolling Stone in October, 1977. Bernstein claimed that over a 25 year period over 400 American journalists secretly carried out assignments for the CIA: "Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors-without-portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested it the derring-do of the spy business as in filing articles, and, the smallest category, full-time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad."

It is almost certain that Bernstein had encountered Operation Mockingbird while working on his Watergate investigation. For example, Deborah Davis (Katharine the Great) has argued that Deep Throat was senior CIA official, Richard Ober, who was running Operation Chaos for Richard Nixon during this period.

According to researchers such as Steve Kangas, Angus Mackenzie and Alex Constantine, Operation Mockingbird was not closed down by the CIA in 1976. For example, in 1998 Kangas argued that CIA asset Richard Mellon Scaife ran "Forum World Features, a foreign news service used as a front to disseminate CIA propaganda around the world."

On 8th February, 1999, Kangas was found dead in the bathroom of the Pittsburgh offices of Richard Mellon Scaife. He had been shot in the head. Officially he had committed suicide but some people believe he was murdered. In an article in Salon Magazine, (19th March, 1999) Andrew Leonard asked: "Why did the police report say the gun wound was to the left of his head, while the autopsy reported a wound on the roof of his mouth? Why had the hard drive on his computer been erased shortly after his death? Why had Scaife assigned his No. 1 private detective, Rex Armistead, to look into Kangas' past?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

Disclaimer: I have no evidence that Mr. Walsh was or is a CIA asset or an asset or agent of the CIA or any other intelligence agency whatsoever, and make no claim that he is such an asset or agent. I think, however, in the context of wanting to find answers for the many troubling anomalies and unanswered questions surrounding the 9/11 attacks, we should remember that the CIA has been caught in the past manipulating the media and using media figures to promote CIA desired points of view.

Speculation

Now that I heard him speak within the full context of the interview, I don't feel one should read too much into it. It is quite possible that he just thought that it must have been the fires that brought the towers down. Also, it doesn't sound so rehearsed to me. Speculation like this won't get us anywhere.

Mark Walsh on Opie and Anthony Show

Mark Walsh was recorded on Sept 12, 2001 on the Opie and Anthony Show. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iKhV68qPt0
It shows a picture of the apartment building he was in, 5 blocks from the towers, on the north side of the WTC.

When the second plane hit the south tower, he says: "An entire engine, one of the engines comes flying off and goes flying down church street, bouncing off of several buildings, and ends up about a block and an half from my apartment."

2:15: So then, about 15-20 minutes later, the first building starts to collapse. You could just look at it. It's starting to melt. Ah, you know, molten metal is just pouring out. Pouring out of the corner of the building. I'm going, oh, this is it, this thing's going down.

Sounds like he was trying to understand how it could have happened. No repeat of the supposed weakening due to the fire.

3:40: Last night, like at 5:30, 7 world trade center went down. And, uh, we were actually able to get footage directly from my apartment when that thing went down.

Different Mark Walsh?

The Mark Walsh introduced in this radio broadcast from April 2011 does sound much like Harley Davidson Guy

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3934391/mark-walsh-on/

The photo of Mark Walsh does bear resemblance to Harley Davidson Guy either.

Do you think there are two people named "Mark Walsh" who worked for Fox?