‘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 even read what people post?)

who mentioned ‘new’?

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.

Ok.

The video you posted is amateur hour garbage, and you should be embarrassed about posting it.

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?

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 ?

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 ?

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…

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 “
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 ?

To be fair, the dudes in black suits are fairly odd.

But this is the US so it’s at least believable

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.

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 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?

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?

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.

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.

“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 !

Very odd, …as it is a very, very, very, very rare occurrence,..and three on one day is pushing it a little.

How rare is it to fly two jets into the two tallest buildings in the world that are right next to another building ?