Suspect ‘Eyewitnesses’ – From 9/11 to the Colorado Massacre

Just a few things I’d like to quickly point out here, and maybe make a few connections along the way.

By now most people reading this probably already know that there are a number of unanswered questions surrounding the Colorado theater shooting. Apart from the fact that the DHS and the FBI released a memo in May this year to security and emergency services to be on the alert for a ‘terrorist’ attack at a movie theater, there is the also the problem of the eyewitness who stated that the gunman (James Holmes) seemed to have an accomplice.

Here’s what eyewitness, Corbin Dates, reported:

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

The guy sounds pretty sincere and appears to be just reporting the facts, which were corroborated to some extent by the many other eyewitnesses who stated that the gunman came in through the emergency exit. Emergency exits in theaters are usually locked and can only be opened from the inside. It is possible of course that Holmes first came in to the theater without his weapons and opened the door himself, left it ajar, walked back out to his car and then came back in. Whether or not this was the case could perhaps be answered by an eyewitness like Corbin Dates. On the other hand, there is this guy, who also comes across as pretty sincere, who thinks that Holmes had someone with him because “the second can of tear gas didn’t come from his [Holmes'] side“.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Next up is another eyewitness to the Aurora shooting. There were, obviously, many eyewitnesses, but this guy is especially interesting because he makes a point of saying precisely the opposite of what Dates and others have said or suggested – that “there was only one guy [shooter]“. In addition, the way that he says it, out of the blue with no prompting and prefacing it with “for the record”, makes his comment seem out of place and forced, as if that was a point that he definitely wanted to make. Have a look:

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

When I first heard him make that comment, I knew I had heard something similar, in a similar context, before. Then I remembered:

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

So there ya have it, 90 minutes after the towers were pulverised (literally), this alleged ‘Fox News freelancer’ somehow managed to get the official story down pat. That’s pretty amazing for an ordinary guy in the street, not so much for a CIA agent who was part of the CIA’s 9/11 crew. Just listen to his obviously scripted segment of “and then I witnessed both towers collapse, one first and then the second, mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense“, and tell, does that sound false or WHAT? I mean, REALLY? Normal people don’t talk like that about a major disaster. Normal people don’t describe the mechanism of the disaster and define how it happened in the immediate aftermath. But Mr ‘Walsh’ doesn’t sound like a crazy person, so what does that make him? A plant, no doubt.

Speaking of 9/11…. for some reason or other, a few days ago, I happened across that famous picture of the alleged explosion of Flight 93 in Shanksville Pennsylvania, taken by local resident Val McClatchey. You’ve probably seen the picture before, but if not, this is the picture that was used, officially, by the US govt. as evidence that Flight 93 crashed in a specific location in Pennsylvania.

My memory must be working over time these days, because when I saw this picture again (after many years), I suddenly remembered I had seem similar images somewhere else before. And I had.

The above image is of an IED (a relatively small quantity explosives (like TNT for example). Such explosions have undoubtedly been seen many times by many people over the course of the 20th century in particular. For example, here’s an image of a shell going off on Utah beach during WWII.

So what’s the problem? Well, Flight 93 had at least 50% (and probably more like 75%) of it fuel left when it allegedly crashed. That’s about 20,000 liters or 5,500 gallons of jet fuel. Jet fuel, like gasoline or kerosene or diesel, burns black. Here’s what you’d see if you happened to witness an aircraft (and its fuel) bursting into flames:

Or:

I suppose the point has been made. What you definitely wouldn’t see is that relatively small puff of dust in the alleged Flight 93 crash/explosion image.

Share

JoeQuinn.net

Read more at JoeQuinn.net