The clearer we thought we saw 9/11, the easier we were to fool

October 31, 2010

By Craig McKee

You’d have to think it would be just about impossible to deceive the world about a catastrophic event like 9/11 because everything happened in broad daylight in front of thousands of people wouldn’t you?
But maybe it’s just the opposite. Maybe it’s the fact that thousands saw it in person and millions watched it over and over on TV that has made it so easy for us to be fooled. The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it, as Hitler said.
Most of us are desperate to believe what we’re told. We think that if we question everything we see and hear, then we’ll never know what’s real and what’s not. This fact is taken advantage of by those who seek to deceive us. They manipulate us and we let them.
And people who do question are marginalized by being called “conspiracy theorists.” With those fringe people out of the way, the rest of us can remain smug and complacent.
There were thousands of eyewitnesses to the collapse of the World Trade Center and the crash at the Pentagon on Sept. 11. Millions more followed the events on TV. The media led us straight to the official story. They didn’t question and neither did we.

Firefighters described massive explosions in World Trade Center basements.

They talked about explosions and controlled demolition on the morning of 9/11, but once the official story was given to them by the Bush administration, they confined themselves to that.
The only thing ruining our little fantasy is that facts reveal it all to be a lie. Don’t you hate it when the truth ruins a good story?
The same thing goes for eyewitnesses. We just assume they’re telling us what they saw to the best of their ability. But what if some of them had other agendas?
One very celebrated “eyewitness” was an unidentified man who has become known as the “Harley shirt guy.” He was interviewed on Fox News about the collapse of the towers.
“…and then I witnessed both towers collapse, one first then the second, mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense.”
No need for an investigation with smart witnesses like this guy. I know bad acting when I see it, and there’s no doubt in my mind that this guy was a plant. Check him out on You Tube, and you may agree.
Who, in the heat of this traumatic event, would say “mostly due to structural failure”? It reminds me of George W. saying that he saw the first plane hit the tower on TV just before going into a Florida classroom for a reading session with some kids. “The TV was obviously on,” he said to explain how he saw the event – on TV. Thanks for clarifying that, George.
When people are giving a truthful account, they don’t say things like that.
Some feel they’ve successfully identified the witness I mentioned as being actor Mark Humphrey. He is best known, at least among Canadians, for his role in the show ENG (appropriately, this stands for Electronic News Gathering), which aired in the early 1990s.
There may be a strong resemblance, but I can say with certainty that the “structural failure” guy is not Mark Humphrey. But even with the interview on video tape, most are not sure. Humphrey has had to account for his whereabouts on that day to prove he’s not part of a conspiracy. He’s not, but I think the other guy may have been.
Is the idea of fake witnesses so far-fetched? If you can consider that the government may have been behind 9/11, why wouldn’t they also plant “witnesses” to reinforce the official story. In fact, they’d be kind of dumb if they didn’t. And they know that anyone who questions whether there were plants on that day is going to be called paranoid and a kook.
In general, the eyewitness accounts on 9/11 have run the gamut. One of the many witnesses who claimed to have seen Flight 77 hit the Pentagon was Steve Anderson, the communications director for USA Today. He said that it was flying so low that it actually hit the ground first, its engines dragging along the ground. Problem is the Pentagon lawn was undamaged. Did this guy imagine it? Who knows, but he was wrong.
It is interesting and suspicious that so many eyewitnesses worked either for the federal government or the mainstream media. Within five minutes of the first tower being hit, all the major networks seemed to have executives of their network describing the scene. They all just happened to be in the area when the plane hit. This is certainly a topic for a future article.
Then there are witnesses whose accounts contradict the official story. For instance, there are witnesses who say they saw an airliner fly over the Pentagon as a huge explosion took place. In fact that would fit well with the fact that the Flight Data Recorder allegedly found in the Pentagon wreckage showed that the plane would have been too high to hit the building. You won’t hear from these witnesses on the networks.
Firefighters and Word Trade Center employees have talked in detail about loud and very destructive explosions in the basements of the towers before they fell. These people made it on to TV on the morning of 9/11 but rarely after that.
Same goes for the testimony of Barry Jennings, the emergency co-ordinator of the City of New York’s housing authority, and Michael Hess, the city’s corporation counsel. Both described being trapped in Building 7 before either tower had fallen. They experienced major explosions in the building that destroyed the lobby. No one has explained these explosions.
Some have talked about seeing airliners hit the buildings, some have said that they looked more like military planes. At the Pentagon, some described airliners, some saw a small commuter plane hit the building. We can’t discount anyone’s account, but neither should we blindly accept what we’re fed.
Yes, it all happened in broad daylight. Yes, the whole world was watching. And yes, it’s a lot easier to imagine foreign enemies attacking us than to believe it’s the very people we trust to protect us.
Perhaps the best place to hide the truth is in plain sight.


  1. I concur with all points made in your article.
    In order for any disinformation to be believable, the lies, half-truths, and misdirection has to be built around a solid foundation of facts and truth.
    Many in the 9/11 truth movement contend that “September Clues” (SC) has been debunked. (Go to YouTube; search on “September Clues”; view 1-9 & A-H; for kicks-and-giggles, view the entries that try to debunk it.)
    One of the early points of SC is that “real commercial airplanes” did not hit the towers. What we saw on the telly was computer generated imagery (CGI) of a commercial airplane. Why? Because leaving the footage depicting a cruise missile or military plane as per eye-witnesses would kind of give away who was behind it. Fake the footage and repeat it, and you’ll get even eye-witnesses to change their testimony, because “by golly, we did see it on the telly, and the idiot box absolutely never lies to us, and from it, we know that Superman can fly.”
    No planes aside, the real weight of SC is that it proves that media/video manipulation did happen on and shortly after 9/11. Corporate mass media was complicit and remains complicit, if their “fair and balanced” handling of the “loony, kooky, nutty” 9/11 Truth Movement over the last 9 years is any indication.
    I’m willing to let people try to convince me (with evidence) that SC is a load of disinformation bunk, or at least many of its conclusions. The point is, as disinformation, it had to be based on a lot of truths and facts. Don’t like “no planes” from SC? Fine. Throw out that conclusion, but keep the valid underlying truths in view, like the planted witnesses, the OCT in full before the towers fell, the absolutely amazing & stunning zoom-and-focus of amateurs at the precise instant when they needed to be filming… etc.
    Along the same lines of disinformation being based on many truths that shouldn’t be thrown out, it is time to revisit Dr. Judy Woods’ website. Yes, for now, completely ignore her “Space weapons” and “directed energy weapons” conclusions. Just look at the pictures of the destruction. Look at the evidence she has compiled. And then realize that it doesn’t prove DEW as much as it proves milli-nukes, particularly in the damage to vehicles in line-of-sight of an EMP that slipped out through the window slits of the towers’ steel mesh. The pulverization of content and foundry-hot fires burning for months under the rubble are side-effects of the multiple milli-nukes employed per tower, and would be very hard to achieve with gravitational acceleration collapses or conventional demolition or even nano-thermite aided demolition.
    9/11 being a nuclear event is another reason why SC and its corporate media complicity is valid. Controlling perceptions and the propaganda is an important military objective that would not be overlooked. Face it. Revelation of a nuclear 9/11 would be so distasteful to all true American Patriots (and Christians) and moralistic people that we would follow the advice of Thomas Jefferson for a little rebellion now and then and to establish our govt anew. Ergo, keeping a lid on 9/11 is indeed national security at its finest, because when the obvious truth of a nuclear 9/11 dawns on the world, the United States and certainly its institutions (and those who make them up) will no longer be the same.

    1. I find myself watching September Clues over and over. And the fact that the whole question of video tampering seems never to be mentioned in other documentaries has both intrigued me and puzzled me. I don’t see how you can be in the 9/11 Truth movement and keep any topic off limits. We need to look at every possibility with an open mind and not based on how it will be received. Let’s not forget the word “truth” in the name of the movement. And truth isn’t always painless. My next post, probably Friday, will look in detail at the baffling comments of Theresa Renaud about seeing the planes hit the towers. She’s every bit as big a liar as Mike Walter of USA Today.
      Thanks for the comment. Your stuff is right on the money.

      1. That’s interesting you would say, “We need to look at every possibility with an open mind and not based on how it will be received”. I disagree with “elOnce” that it was milli nukes that turned the towers to dust. Each floor was disintegrating at ten per second and from the top going down. Not like the demolitions we see in videos where charges are detonated in sequence throughout the building…… and the whole thing comes down in a package.
        This didn’t happen to the towers.
        We all looked at it and saw it unraveled from the top down. The big question is what caused this. elOnce thinks it was small nukes. That’s nuclear fission which produces a lot of heat and radiation. No matter how many times you look at the Towers unraveling you don’t see fire, just dust as each floor comes apart into dust. Even the outside facade that was plummeting down in the dust, trailed dust until it as well turned to dust. We are talking about steel girders turning to dust.
        Just because explosions were heard, does not mean it was charges of dynamite or thermite or other explosives that is commonly used to bring down in controlled demolition. If it is controlled, why were they hearing explosions, assuming this is what brought the Towers down.
        Craig you said…. “They talked about explosions and controlled demolition on the morning of 9/11″…. right they did, and we all heard the explosions, but like the guy with the “harley shirt” saying it was due to metal fatigue caused by the fires, the firemen and other emergency personnel heard explosions….. BUT … would they know it was due to controlled demolition? We all heard them echoing among the buildings.
        It seems everyone is guessing as to the cause of the building turning to dust but not using evidence to back up their guess. Just like the title of this thread stated….. The clearer we thought we saw 9/11, the easier we were to fool”. Of course we know the only way a building can be made to come apart is by CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, after all the Architects and Engineers say so.
        Well this is 2016 and we are seeing buildings being destroyed in the Gaza Strip by something other then conventional explosives……
        The military is now showing off something else…..
        Are you still convinced it was controlled demolition?

  2. Thank you, for a great web site, and for your mind. You must be one of those who never got hired by the Hartford Police Dept. because you are too smart!! 🙂 That was in an article in our local Greensboro News & Record newspaper, many years ago. I cut out the article, and saved it for many years, but when I tried to find it again, years ago, it was gone. Couldn’t get it from the paper’s archives/library, either, though I tried. ?? I don’t really know how to do proper research, so it may have been my own fault that I couldn’t.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *