Seeking Crash Witnesses For Interview Options

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

FIREFIGHTER JAMES MURPHY

After that I ran up to the roof on the third floor with me and Eric Bernsten. We were watching it. We could see it from here. We have an unobstructed view. The other guys came up too. All six of us were on the roof.

Then we saw the second one come up. It looked like it was coming up the East River from here. I guess it was coming from the south. I thought it banked over the East River, which is what it looked like. I thought it made a left over the East River and went right into it going from east to west. But as it turns out, it came from the south. Then we saw it just go right into the building and explode.

I remember talking to Eric. I remember Eric saying something, "Oh, my God, there's another plane." I was saying to him, "That plane is closer to us. It's really not a big plane going towards the building." Two seconds later it rammed into the building.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

BARRETT HIRSCH EMS

as I'm walking towards the Engine to find out what Lieutenant Walsh wanted us to do, I heard the sound of a jet plane. I looked up and saw it pretty close and I was like holy @#%$. What's going on with the with the flight patterns. All of a sudden, the wings turned and it dove right into the building and it was screwed up

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

PARAMEDIC KENNETH DAVIS

As we were driving over the 59th Street bridge, just looking out the window, we saw a plane hit the World Trade Center, what we thought was a plane. When they looked, you could see the flames and the smoke starting and they're like, wow, it must have been one of the little planes. I said, no, it looked like a jet.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

CHIEF OF THE DEPARTMENT DANIEL NIGRO

At some point after our arrival and after we had moved to the west side of West Street, I heard a loud roar of a jet, looked up and saw the second plane impact the south tower. At that point it was clear to me it was a terrorist attack. We stepped over small airplane aviation parts, on Vesey, continued west, continued looking at the building.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

BATTALION CHIEF BRIAN OFLAHERTY

JUST THEN OUT OF THE CORNER OF MY EYE COULD SEE THIS PLANE JUST REMEMBER THE DARK IT WAS IN THE SHADOW IT LOOKED LOW THOUGHT WHAT THE HECK IS THE GUY DOING WATCHED IT WATCHED HIM TURN AND CRASH RIGHT INTO THE SOUTH TOWER.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

EMS CAPTAIN MARK STONE

I was looking up to see if I could do a little more initial size up. That is when I saw the second plane hit the building . I just watched it coming in.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

EMT JARJEAN FELTON

WHILE WEWERE RIGHT UNDER HERE UNDER THE WESTSIDE HIGHWAY AND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE I SEEN THE SECOND PLANE COMING I’M THINKING ISNT THAT PLANE TOO LOW I’M LIKETHEN NOTICED SEEN IT TURN IT TURNED AND WENT RIGHT IN THE BUILDING BUT WERE BEHIND LIKE THIS IS THE BUILDING IT WENT IN AND YOU SEE THE EXPLOSION IN THE front

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

FIREFIGHTER JOSEPH CASALIGGI

It was at that time when I saw the second plane hit the building. I called a mayday. I told them the second plane hit the south tower of the building. I wasn't sure which floors it was, but I knew it hit the upper floors of the south tower.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

FIREFIGHTER THOMAS GABY

Q. The second plane?

A. I saw it coming in, I heard it, and bang, it hit

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

Why don't you start there, Ace?

[acebaker]

I called the FDNY. I was told the firefighters are not allowed to speak to me. I asked why that was, and I was not given an answer really. I was told that I would have to obtain clearance, and when I asked how to do that, I was told that they were "not interested".

I would be more than happy to interview the alleged witnesses.

I'm not inclined to believe the written government reports about witness statements any more than I am inclined to believe the 9/11 Commission report, or NIST. It's government lies. You might as well believe the Warren Commission.

[dMz]

Post #92 from a nearby thread:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10759364

"I repeat my request to interview anyone who saw an airplane crash at the WTC. Persistent requests have thus far yielded zero. Stipulations are:

1. Must be willing to go on record.
2. Must be willing to use real name.

Any witnesses will be interviewed, a pilot would be great.

My email is acebaker1234 [at] yahoo [dot] com

Sincerely,

Ace Baker"

EDIT: Related threads are at:
Banning No-planers?, Merged with No Planes at WTC- "Proven"? Beyond All Doubt
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15538

Ace Baker - Video Composite Theory Set, merged threads
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15544

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

I called the FDNY. I was told the firefighters are not allowed to speak to me. I asked why that was, and I was not given an answer really. I was told that I would have to obtain clearance, and when I asked how to do that, I was told that they were "not interested".

I would be more than happy to interview the alleged witnesses.

I'm not inclined to believe the written government reports about witness statements any more than I am inclined to believe the 9/11 Commission report, or NIST. It's government lies. You might as well believe the Warren Commission.

Well that's what makes you a conspiracy theorist and us actual researchers and investigators trying to get to the truth.

You are going about it all wrong. First, you should try and simply contact them at home. Second, you should document what you are saying to them in the first place by recording it.

What is your EXACT approach Ace? What do you tell them about your beliefs or intentions?

[acebaker]

Aldo, don't be so antagonistic and over-confident.

[paranoia]

I called the FDNY. I was told the firefighters are not allowed to speak to me. I asked why that was, and I was not given an answer really. I was told that I would have to obtain clearance, and when I asked how to do that, I was told that they were "not interested".

forgive my skepticism mr.baker/alexander, but who exactly did you call? the "fdny" is rather broad organization, dont u agree? surely you would expect the highest up office that you (presumably) reached, to turn you away. besides, im guessing that you were turned away by the "fdny" because "they" assumed you wanted to ask questions about the events in the towers, not some simple (and perceived to be crazy) question about the 2nd plane being real. but regardless of the vague entity known as "fdny", there are dozens of individual firehouses and 100's of firemen that you can personally try to reach out to. im willing to bet that if you reached one of these guys (firemen or emt's), and they could get over their incredulity of your line of inquiry, they would probably be willing to share with you that they DID see the 2nd plane enter the tower. sure - some of them may be insulted at such a question and turn you away, but some might not. the problem is that you havent even gone that far. you knocked only on a door that a had a high chance of not being answered, and then (it seems) you called it quits on your witness-hunting efforts.

it seems at this current point, you expect these witnesses to come to you instead. thus, your claim of "being more than happy to interview (alleged) witnesses (to the wtc crash or crashes)", is rather suspect. either you are looking to interview some of these witnesses, or you arent. some doomed-to-fail attempt at reaching them via some bureacracy, is well... lame. instead of relying on official channels for info, or worse - waiting for them to come to you - perhaps you can canvass some of the prime locations for "UAL 175" witnesses in NYC and find yourself a living witness who will go on camera and tell you that they did indeed see and hear a plane crash into the building (tho im sure all the fakery people will instantly label this person as a liar and a shill). there are probably other non-fdny or police witnesses in ny as well, so you dont have to solely go after those who may have been gagged.

all you have to do is get on foot, get to the locations, and start asking questions and posting flyers. sooner or later somebody is bound to pop up. but for now all you have is video expertise, a bunch of mostly low-res videos to examine, a fakery thesis, and alot of time spent debating fakery vs fakery with other fakery "experts". what you doNt have is any proof of your alleged rejection by the "FDNY", any proof of a substantive effort to actually find some real witnesses, nor any witness testimony - that either say they saw a plane impact OR testimony from someone saying they did NOT see a plane but saw explosions or a missile or whatever instead.


but to help you in your efforts, here is some contact info for some of the witnesses aldo named above. maybe you could tape them rejecting you (if they reject you) or enlightening you so that at least we know you really tried. until then, your alleged efforts to find witnesses is unsubstantiated.


possible JARJEAN FELTON:
http://www.whitepages.com/10866/search/Rep...&form_mode=


JOSEPH CASALIGGI
http://www.zabasearch.com/query1_zaba.php?...mp;tm=&tmr=

http://www.whitepages.com/10866/search/Rep...&form_mode=


THOMAS GABY
http://www.zabasearch.com/maps/?sname1=THO...631)%20321-6530

http://www.whitepages.com/10866/search/Fin...by&where=ny



***


one other note/question: of the videos you've analyzed, are any of them in their original quality? i assume the naudet footage is the highest quality (publicly available via DVD) of the bunch, but how about the rest? wether due to VHS recordings of news footage, or actual video camera video tapes from various people (amateurs), couldnt some of these video anomallies result from quality loss during transfer or from actual tape degradation? i mean i only have a handful of video tapes lying around, wether they be home VCR tapes, sony's old hi8 or sony's newer hi8, or minidv (not as common in 2001 for joepublic) or what have you. but most of these tapes have been taped over dozens of times, and the quality of the footage contained on them is crap (directly proportionate to how taped-over each of them is). so cant some of the video anomallies be attributed to "natural causes" and be lost resolution issues and not video fakery?

also - it seems to me that because of your expertise in the field of video, the layman is ill-equipped to debate the subject in a qualified manner with you. have you posted any of these video-related arguments at a forum of video and/or editing experts, preferrably a non-911 related site? if so, could you link us to those discussions please? if not, would you be willing to post this material at some VIDEO-related sites to see if other experts have some answers/explanations/rebuttals to your technical assertions?


***


and i saw you mention this in a different thread, but if its ok with you i would like to save time and respond here:

The WTC witnesses claim to have seen something impossible - an airplane colliding with a steel and concrete tower without showing any signs of damage at all. Not one video shows one tiny bit of damage occurring to either the airplane or the building.

Not one.

That's why they look fake.


i agree - what we see in the crash videos isnt what should (or is expected to) normally happen, but i think there is a simple explanation and its often been overlooked. if the building was intact inside (behind the facade), then yes certain solid parts of the plane's frame should meet with these solid building parts (most notably the floors and columns) and eventually slow down instead of penetrating unabated. but it is my opinion that seconds prior to impact, the insides of the building were dropped out of the way, up to 10 floors-worth on the impact/entry side, which in turn allowed the plane to go "seamlessly" into the building. the exterior wall metal where the plane met facade, were made of fairly thin metal:

(IMG:http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/3/11/25/f_wtcexteriorm_bfb2777.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/4aea3edd0c.jpg)

and imo would have resulted in a negligible amount of resistance by the building. no fakery needed, at least not the video editing kind. instead some preplanning (pre-impact demolition) and precision guided airplane would be all thats required to accomplish what appears to happen in the video. all im saying is that video fakery is not the ONLY possible explanation for the crash physics. the question becomes: which is harder logistically to accomplish? maniuplating a live broadcast? or having a team of dirty-deed-doing henchmen who rigged the buildings for several layers of multi-purposed explosions?

and of course - as mentioned prior, how do you fool (the many) people on the streets who are all watching the first tower burning live without television, when this 2nd plane impact occurs? wouldnt at least some of these people have spoken up by now to say there was NO plane? until you make a real effort to find and then refute these witnesses, you're case has a significant flaw.

btw- sorry i just remembered one last thing - there was a lady, whose name escapes me right now, who took 35mm pictures of the plane and claims to have the negatives. have you tried reaching her to see if she's open to letting you document (examine) her negatives? i saw a thread about her at KT's forum, and of course they all labled her a shill and a fake, but i think she might be the best case against (or for!) video fakery. im not into contacting people, but would you be willing to look into finding her for more info?



just my humble 2 cents...

[acebaker]

In all cases I have analyzed the best quality footage that is availalbe. The fact that the airplane videos, and in particular Chopper 5, are not available in broadcast quality, AT ANY PRICE, is very suspicious.

Fairbanks, Hezarkhani, Park Foreman and Naudet come from DVD. Chopper 5 is from VHS.

Naudet appears to have been originally shot in HD, it is 16 x 9 ratio. AKAIK, the Naudet brothers have never made available the original quality footage for examination of the airplane.

http://www.petitiononline.com/Video911/petition.html

Here is a petition requesting broadcast quality video.

[acebaker]

Your "garage door" theory makes no sense.

1. We see no evidence of any explosions prior to the airplane going in.
2. We still see no evidence of the wall breaking away, which would occur even if the floors were removed.

The 9/11 airplane videos are video composites.

[Quest]

Aldo, I have a few questions for you. I do not make a claim with 100 percent certainty that no plane struck either tower. I don't think that's the case (that planes hit) but I am open to the possibility. What I do believe with a great degree of certainty is the faking of most of the strike videos and photos. That being said, my 1st question is as follows; is it your claim that all of the WTC video/photo "evidence" is legit?

My next question is, is it possible that the strike photos/videos were faked or tampered with to hide the identity of what actually hit?

This post has been edited by Quest: Nov 26 2008, 09:30 PM

[acebaker]

No Quest, it is not possible to have covered up an incoming object in real time. Read my treatise.

[Quest]

No Quest, it is not possible to have covered up an incoming object in real time. Read my treatise.

Oh, I agree that the videos do no represent what actually transpired, Ace. However it was done (the fakery), the physics don't support what we saw in the various video/photos of plane 'strikes'. Aluminum planes don't melt into steel-framed towers. Additionally, there has never been any witnesses to plane debris where you would most expect to see it; on the ground below the gash. No videos, photos or witnesses. Amazing.