I think that’s the smoking gun, they told that guy [i]everything[/i], including stuff he didn’t need to know to be a credible witness. Then let him loose.
Sheesh, I feel like my world is crumbling around me
Could someone paint this as perfectly normal? Pretty please?
Ok. Yes is pretty normal (for a day when two massive building were his by planes!)
The Guy called “Psycho” Mark Walsh, he worked for Fox as a freelance reporter at the time and is relatively famous.
He lives where said he lives, he saw what he said he saw. He even filmed it from his living room. This is all verifiable fact if you can bothered to look it up.
The term “Ground Zero” has been around and in widespread use since at least the mid 1940’s
Why is it so strange that he would use it, perfectly correctly, in this scenario ??
And yet you believe those who obscure information from you...(and have a known track record of lying)
Well, if we're talking obscure information, you're a world leader at that - I would never go as far as accusing you of lying, but you have a remarkable and proven record of lengthy, obscure posts with next to no information at all in them.
WhathaveIsaidnow what do you find abnormal about the interview ? Obviously other than its about an abnormal event on the day of the event !
WhathaveIsaidnow what do you find abnormal about the interview ? Obviously other than its about an abnormal event on the day of the event !
Mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense.
...that's a very assured guess...
.... the guy in black, with the ear piece moving in and listening intently... to make sure he gets it correct...
ow and he just happened to work for Fox occasionally...
...he is very assured, like he has read this a few times in advance, he doesn't miss a beat, almost sounds excited....
Then he used a term "ground zero" on broadcast TV, that was later picked up and used by others.
any proof?
speculated that the fire had damaged the building structurally
Mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense.
...maybe he should have said 'maybe...'
or....I don't know how the hell they collapsed like that, that is unbelievable...etc...
He lives where said he lives, he saw what he said he saw. He even filmed it from his living room. This is all verifiable fact if you can bothered to look it up
...of course...you don't set up for this and still be in the green room...
He watched a building fall down that is what I'd call structural failure , he could see it was on fire , he said it was due to intense fire . mind you he was not a structural engineer possibly a non crisis actor would have said it was intact and fell over in high winds!
The man in a suit in the business end of new York who you find so exciting how do you read his mind ? How do you know why he is interested in listening to the interview , I would imagine the whole point of interviewing people for TV is that random people will be interested.
Let's accept you are right he is an actor word perfect but not trusted to get it right with a men in black body guard what is the conspiracy's gain from this ?
Then he used a term "ground zero" on broadcast TV, that was later picked up and used by others.
any proof?
Ground Zero isn’t a new term. It’s been in common useage since the 40’s.
(Do you even read what people post?)
'he is very assured, like he has read this a few times in advance, he doesn't miss a beat, almost sounds excited"
Its almost as if he is a minor media personality who is used to talking witnessed a major event and found himself in front of a camera.
Why would the conspiracy use a known media whore as a witness rather than a clean skin ?
Do you want to understand the facts, or do you want there to be a conspiracy?
#poeslaw
Ground Zero isn’t a new term. It’s been in common useage since the 40’s.(Do you even read what people post?)
who mentioned 'new'?
Does the fact your conspiracy video wrongly identifies him as an actor who was in los Angeles at the time and that truthfers continue to argue it is Humphreys and not Walsh in the video even though Walsh's friends recognise him concern you?
Sorry. You will need to explain then.
Why then does it matter, that he used the term “ground zero” (in the correct context) in the video ?
I’m not getting it.
The video even said “wow” as if it was some exclusive “smoking gun” they had unearthed.
@whathaveisaidnowDo you want to understand the facts
please God just give me the facts, actual undisputed, 100 per cent facts and truths please
please God just give me the facts
Ok.
The video you posted is amateur hour garbage, and you should be embarrassed about posting it.
The man in a suit in the business end of new York who you find so exciting how do you read his mind ? How do you know why he is interested in listening to the interview , I would imagine the whole point of interviewing people for TV is that random people will be interested.
he wasn't a random person, he worked freelance for Fox, what are the odds that out of all the people they could have picked to interview it happened to be this guy...
The guy in the suit has an earpiece and shows body language that suggests he is part of this scenario, not just a random suit...
...no wonder i ride alone...
sorry misinterpreted the random person as the interviewed guy... still its unusual...
i don't mind correcting my wrongs...
Ok.The video you posted as amateur hour garbage, and you should be embarrassed about posting it.
you are real good at just ignoring my questions and just jumping on me....i've only been nice to you.
...have you got an issue?
amateur hour garbage
proof?
AQ terrorists seized airliners and flew them into major buildings in America causing a massive loss of life massive financial loss and a huge blow to American pride . It was part of a continuing campaign of terror against America inspired by Ossama Bin laden.
Some Americans try to restore a sense of self about this by saying Arabs could not pull that off it must be an American inside job. No " evidence " to support this conspiracy theory stands up to scrutiny. But still thanks to the wonders of the internet and the view everyone is entitled to an opinion the argument drags on.
Is that the simple facts ?
please God just give me the facts, actual undisputed, 100 per cent facts and truths please
Ok, look at the video you posted and apply some critical thinking to it.
Critique it from both sides of the debate, not just from what you want to see.
Ignore the text overlay.
he wasn't a random person, he worked freelance for Fox, what are the odds that out of all the people they could have picked to interview it happened to be this guy...
He introduced the guy as a freelancer for Fox. He knew who he was before the interview. He was stood there waiting to be interviewed.
Just like most news interviews.
He’s a freelance journalist who knows hundreds of other media people.
He was an eyewitness to an incredible event.
Explain again why you find it incredible that he would end up in front of a camera being asked about what he saw ?
Whathaveisaidnow - Memberhe wasn't a random person, he worked freelance for Fox, what are the odds that out of all the people they could have picked to interview it happened to be this guy...
As you say, he wasn't random. What are the odds that a dude from Fox, finding a witness from Fox, who can speak coherently on TV without saying ****, would use them for that interview?
As you say, he wasn't random. What are the odds that a dude from Fox, finding a witness from Fox, who can speak coherently on TV without saying ****, would use them for that interview?
i agree that could be a sensible move... given the chaos...
i am more alarmed by the certainty of his answers and the guys in black...
"he wasn't a random person, he worked freelance for Fox, what are the odds that out of all the people they could have picked to interview it happened to be this guy..."
Re read what I wrote why would a man in black suit be interested in a TV interview because they are designed to be interesting to random people.
What are the odds that a media whore with connections and a bona fide story to tell could find himself in front of a TV camera on the day a major event happened in his back yard ? Seriously I'd estimate about 100/100
Ok, look at the video you posted and apply some critical thinking to it.Critique it from both sides of the debate, not just from what you want to see.
Ignore the text overlay.
i'm learning to do this.
i am more alarmed by the certainty of his answers and the guys in black
He’s a professional reporter, and radio host, asked to do an interview about something he’d personally witnessed.
How uncertain would you expect a prepared professional to be ?
amateur hour garbage
proof?
It was produced by amateurs, and the text overlays claims are all garbage.
(Why it it incredible that he used the term “ground zero”?
He’s not an actor, he’s a reporter and radio host..... etc etc)
"i am more alarmed by the certainty of his answers "
He saw what happened
"and the guys in black..."
Guys in Manhattan in black suits wow who'd have guessed.
They may be FBI or spooks !if so .. Do you not think the streets would be flooded by random people and every single available security man of every description who would be curious about everything , what with the massive event happening and all ?
okay...
he used ground zero.... he could have been familiar with the term and used it correctly...
okay...
he worked for fox, he possibly filmed it, saw it all (that could be a lie),
he was deemed a good guy to interview...get it...
i'm struggling with the guys in black and his very assured take on why they came down...
clear these bits up
To be fair, the dudes in black suits are fairly odd.
But this is the US so it’s at least believable
very assured
Media training.
If you've had it, you know how to speak to the media in a very assured manner. I know that I do.
Also, people in suits in a CBD? Who'dathunkit.
"i am more alarmed by the certainty of his answers "
He saw what happened
"and the guys in black..."
Guys in Manhattan in black suits wow who'd have guessed.
They may be FBI or spooks !if so .. Do you not think the streets would be flooded by random people and every single available security man of every description who would be curious about everything , what with the massive event happening and all ?
he saw what happened from a distance of 5 blocks ... but he could not know how exactly the collapse happened.... impossible.
if this was a set up interview....it was set up precisely, with thought,..there is nothing random about this interview...IMHO.
In the interest of fairness, anyone want to explain the MIBs?
Media training.If you've had it, you know how to speak to the media in a very assured manner. I know that I do.
Certainly he was ripe for this interview, i agree.
i'm struggling with the guys in black and his very assured take on why they came down...clear these bits up
The 1st one appears to be a curious bystander who is listening to the interview. How many times have you seen people approach reporters and interviewees on the street to see what is going on?
The 2nd one, is probably one of hundreds of FBI, police etc. who even if off duty would have been called in to work and cover the streets.
Why would he lie about filming it? Surely if he was in on it, then he would of been waiting for it happen?
Also, if this video is true, "they" have managed to keep another 4 individuals completely quiet about the whole conspiracy.
I'm sure you're trolling.
In the interest of fairness, anyone want to explain the MIBs?
... i think without the second one saying....errr i can't tell you why i'm here (off top of my head)... the first one would pass fairly unnoticed...maybe he works for fox, lots of expensive broadcast equipment and reporter to protect?
nothing random about this interview.
The bloke he's interviewing is another news reporter. It isn't a random bloke from the street. He's been chosen precisely because he can talk in front of a camera in coherent sentences rather then the usual "oh gawd, did you see, I mean, oh gawd, what..., oh gawd" normal shite that a non trained idiot would come up with... It makes for better telly
if this was a set up interview....it was set up precisely, with thought,..there is nothing random about this interview...IMHO.
Ok, imagine the logistics to set this up. Consider how often it would have to be repeated, ask yourself why no one has talked.
How many other interviews have you looked at, or did you look for conspiracies and find this? What does that tell you?
Ask yourself if his answers deflect attention or attract it, if this was planned why give him that info if it sounds so suspicious?
Are you suggesting that such a carefully planned false flag operation failed at such a basic level?
Are you applying critical thinking?
And remember that Fox is an entertainment channel (ignore the Fox News bit) they want ratings and viewers not verisimilitude
Google him his apartment was used for filming the scene for days after . he didn't know exactly what happened he said structural failure how else do you say a structure fell down due to intense fire , he saw an intense fire! How odd is that to say a burning building that caught fire fell down , structurally failed due to fire . Interestingly the inquest into what happened agreed with this eye witness account . Most people think that when the inquest, technical evidence and eye witnesses agree then the official version is correct rather than the opposite.
Also, if this video is true, "they" have managed to keep another 4 individuals completely quiet about the whole conspiracy
i really don't buy,...the people would have come forward by now argument, because you know what, they wouldn't be believed...
I've been here since around 2002 ish,..under different names...i was part of billy no mates (people on here came together to form two teams) at sleepless in the saddle at Trentham circa whenever... does that make me a Troll? 🙂
Are you suggesting that such a carefully planned false flag operation failed at such a basic level?Are you applying critical thinking?
...it has yet to fail...and likely never will...
the vast majority of humans are used to fake tv....it makes it harder to see the truth IMHO.
That suggests you me you’ve made your mind up and are looking for reinforcement rather than fact.
If that’s the case good luck but I’m out
"In the interest of fairness, anyone want to explain the MIBs?" See above but:
Suits in Manhattan ! What next aprons in butcher's shops!
Every available law/security asset would flood the streets being interested in everything.
Do you seriously think operational spooks wear a clearly identifiable uniform when operational ? Men in Black it's even in the movies !