{Jack's Notes: this is incredibly damning, well-sourced information posted today.
Anyone who has followed the Pentagon eyewitness accounts quickly sees that they fall into different categories.
YOU MUST read this link below, and see EXACTLY where Dahler claimed to be. }
------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis – Don Dahler Blows his Cover

The following exchange between Don Dahler and Peter Jennings occurs shortly after the south tower collapse (footage available here, VRT 3:00 – 4:52):

Peter:

Now this is what it looked like moments ago... My gosh.
The southern .. tower ... 10 o'clock eastern time this morning,just collapsing on itself.
This is a place where thousands of people work. We have no idea what caused this.
Um ..If you wish to bring ah .. anybody who’s ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows .. that if you're going to do this you have to get at the .. at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down.

Don:

Peter?

Peter:

Yes Dan.

Don:

What appeared to happen from my vantage point .. the top part of the building was totally involved in fire, and there was .. there appeared to be no effort possible to put that fire out.
It looked like the top part of the building was so weakened by the fire that it just .. the weight of it collapsed the rest of the building .. that's what appeared to happen.
I did not see anything happening at the base of the building.
It all appeared to start at the top and then just collapse the rest of the building by the sheer weight of the top.

There was no explosion or anything at the base part of it, but I .. I did see that the top part of it started to collapse, the walls started to bulge out, bricks, glass, things coming out, and then it collapsed in on itself, and it appeared to just fold down from there, from the very top.

Peter:



Thanks, Don, very much.
Um, just looking at that, I don't know why, but I'm .. when was the last time the United States was attacked in this manner - it was Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Notice how Don immediately jumps in to refute Peter’s speculation of demolition, in spite of the fact that he’s just admitted that he can’t see the base of the towers. How can he be so sure that there was no explosion when he clearly was in no position to see it?

By virtue of this one exchange, Don blew the doors off the cover that had been so carefully crafted up to that point. I find it incredibly ironic that his credibility was destroyed in concert with the destruction of WTC2.

http://911logic.blogspot.com/

more

Introduction – Don Dahler

Don Dahler is the ABC correspondent who is probably best known for his role in this “Reporter Didn’t See Plane” video clip.

I used this clip about a month ago at 911blogger when asked to provide an eyewitness who didn’t see a plane. However, until I started working on this series of articles, I’d never had a chance to review the rest of the available ABC footage.

When I first saw and heard that clip a couple of months ago, I naively believed that Don Dahler was just an innocent reporter caught up in the day’s events. However, while reviewing some more ABC footage, I came across something that quickly changed my mind.

Good to have you back on the boards pounding away at your keyboard Jack... keep up the good work.. and thanks!

Rob

Great info, Jack! I've heard the Jennings comment many times but I hadn't heard the exchange from the other guy.

This reminds me of the guy interviewed right after the first tower fell saying the heat weakened the steel and that was why it fell. (Supposedly he was just some random guy off the street.)

Here's my point for posting all of this:

if 9/11 was NOT an inside job, there would be NO NEED to have any witnesses giving these odd stories, that seem rehearsed, planted, or "push" a certain angle.

Dahler was a 'newsman' not a pure eyewitness, but note how QUICKLY he corrects Peter Jennings with HIS interpretation of "the building collapsed due to heat damage" -- getting the fire=>heat=>steel=>collapse 'meme' out there, at EXACTLY the moment while the viewing public was in a highly suggestable, traumatized state.

his words, again
What appeared to happen from my vantage point .. the top part of the building was totally involved in fire, and there was .. there appeared to be no effort possible to put that fire out.
It looked like the top part of the building was so weakened by the fire that it just .. the weight of it collapsed the rest of the building .. that's what appeared to happen.
I did not see anything happening at the base of the building.
It all appeared to start at the top and then just collapse the rest of the building by the sheer weight of the top.

There was no explosion or anything at the base part of it, but I .. I did see that the top part of it started to collapse, the walls started to bulge out, bricks, glass, things coming out, and then it collapsed in on itself, and it appeared to just fold down from there, from the very top.

Why does he say there was no explosion at the base? Rick Siegel;s documentary, AND a lot of FDNY testimony, AND photos, show explosions, noise, sound, even yellowish smoke at the base.

So why does Dahler have to insert that 'no explosion at the base' ?

Then you get on to the Davis, Arce, Renault witness stories, each of which seems a bit unnecessary. Why not go to someone CLOSER to towers?

It is just like the Pentagon -- as if only CERTAIN witnesses got camera or newspaper time/quotes -- and they KNEW JUST WHAT TO SAY.

if 9/11 was NOT an inside job, there'd be NO NEED for any of these odd witnesses. a pure naive witness would tell the best story.

see also 9/11 Mysteries witness : "the guy in the Harley Davidson shirt, explaining why the building collapsed -- due to structural damage"

Again -- why did Dahler feel the need to overrrule Peter Frickin Jennings RIGHT THEN AND THERE?

without any information, it would be perfectly reasonable to postulate that the BUILDINGS WERE BLOWN UP BY TERRORIST BOMBS.

after all, they bombed them in '93.

so why does Dahler hammer on the 'structural damage story'

you HAVE to ask why.

Get active.
or get Radioactive.
-Tarpley