As a last post in this thread and to round off the information that I have already submitted, I will now turn to the statements of the 6 gas leak firemen. I will only be quoting those sections surrounding the "first strike".
Here is a list of basic indications of fabrication and/or deception in a witness account:
Switching of tense from past to present for no valid reason. (story telling)
Substitution of one noun for another with no explanation for that switch. (jet to plane, photographer to cameraman)
Inappropriate use of second person "you" instead of "I".
Inappropriate use of first person plural "we" instead of "I".
Avoidance of the use of "I" (inappropriate dropped pronoun).
Overuse of "I" following an "and". (effort to convince)
Incorrect or inappropriate demonstrative pronouns (this instead of that or vice versa).
Missing or incorrect article introduction (the car instead of a car).
Inappropriately attaching a gender to an object.
Inappropriate use of "then" to cover up a gap in time in the account.
Inappropriate use of "just" or "only". (minimisation).
Convoluted use of very long sentences (multiple 'and'). (as a technique of information overload)
As I have already mentioned James Curran in a previous post, I will turn to his statement first, moving past the paragraph I have already covered.
James Curran - interview date 30 December 2001. Ladder company 8.
Us, Engine 7 and ladder 1 we all responded with the First Battalion. We were there for 5, 15, 16 minutes. We had found out what grate the leak was coming from and our Chief Pfiefer (sic) was bent over with the gas meter. We heard the plane. We looked up. It was low enough that it was rattling the buildings we were standing at. We saw it come out from behind the buildings and hit tower one and like I said a fireball, looked like 10 or 30 stories big, shot out of the south side of the tower and then out of the hole that the plane made going in.
At least 3 units (or more) were called out to a “non emergency” gas leak.
Changes 5 minutes to 15, 16 minutes for no valid reason.
A Battalion Chief is at a gas leak, contrary to expectation.
Incorrect article introduction - "the gas meter" should be "a gas meter".
Incorrect article introduction - "the plane" instead of "a plane". (acting as if a plane is an established fact. It's incorrect English even if a plane is an established fact)
Inappropriate use of first person plural "we" instead of "I".
The use of the word “at” indicates that they were all standing on the pavement otherwise he'd say "around us" indicating that they were standing in the road.
Do planes “rattle buildings”?
Inappropriate use of first person plural "we" instead of "I" again.
"like I said" - The interview has only just started and he has not mentioned a fireball prior to this. Indicates that he's told this story before or spent time rehearsing.
Was it 10 or was it 30 stories? (generic).
Convoluted use of very long sentence (multiple 'and').
Last sentence - overall, is that what happens in the footage? Again, generic.
Instead of describing all this why didn't he say "Everything I saw is on film"?
Deception indicated.
James Curran is not seen anywhere else in the Naudet film. It is not possible to identify which firemen he was in the "first strike" footage as I can find no other information about him on Google.
Please note that the above statement is out of sequence with the rest of the statements of the 6 gas leak firemen. The rest of the statements will be in interview order. I point this out because there was time, between the first and last interviews, for these people to confer and get their stories straight, which they clearly didn't, indicating pre-written scripts for people that most likely do not exist in real life or were following the script for their taped interviews.
Joseph Pfeifer, Battalion Chief, Duane Street - interview date 23.10.2001.
I was working the night before in the 1st Battalion, and sometime about 8:15 or so in the morning we got a call to Lispenard and Church for a gas leak in the street. We were there for a while checking on the gas leak, and then we heard the loud roar of the plane come over, and we turned around and we looked and we saw the plane coming down, heading south towards the Trade Center, and made a direct hit on the Trade Center.
Q: You saw it hit?
A: I saw it hit.
Why does he need to tell the listener that he'd been working the night before in the 1st Battalion? Did he usually work elsewhere? Overall, so what? Did the listener need to know that?
Deliberately vague timings.
Why does he need to say "we were there for a while"?
"and then" - indicates a gap in time. Why "
and then", why not simply "then"?
Incorrect article introduction - "the plane" should be "a plane".
Inappropriate use of first person plural "we" instead of "I".
"and made a direct hit on the Trade Centre" - missing article - it.
"I saw it hit" - why didn't he say "and what I saw is on film"? Avoids the use of "the plane".
Note he doesn't say which tower it hit. He says "the Trade Center". Generic.
Note he avoids mentioning or describing an explosion, unlike James Curran (whose statement isn't until December 2001). Generic.
Convoluted use of very long sentences (multiple 'and').
Deception indicated.
Nicholas Borrillo - interview date 9 January 2002. Ladder 1, Duane Street.
We were at a box for odor of gas in the street on Church and Lispenard. We were investigating that. We were just about ready to take up from that box and come back when we heard the roar of the engines of the plane. Before we knew it, it was overhead. Within two seconds it hit the north tower.
Why would they be at a gas leak other than to investigate it?
At no point is "I" used in relation to the plane.
Incorrect article introduction - "the plane" instead of "a plane".
Borrillo does not directly state that he saw a plane. It was “heard”, it was “overhead” then "it hit the north tower”.
Why not mention that what he saw was filmed?
Deception indicated.
Joseph Casaliggi - interview date 9 January 2002. Engine 7. Duane Street.
On the morning of September 11th we were operating a box up on Church Street Near Canal. There was an odor of gas in the area. While we were out operating, we heard the first plane coming in. I turned around and I watched the plane crash into the north tower.
Initially appears to be an honest account except it's too short, plus
“watched” instead of "saw" along with -
Inappropriate secondary use of "I" after "turned around and" - should be "I turned around and watched". (Effort to convince.)
Why not mention that what he saw was on film?
Fabrication indicated.
Joseph Casaliggi (incorrectly spelled as Casalissi in the TFIs) also says he saw the second plane strike WTC2. That sighting is backed up by another "first strike" witness, Thomas Spinard.
14 people out of 503 claim to have seen the first plane (3%). 9 of them are connected to Duane Street.
2 people out of 503 claim to have seen both strikes (0.39%) and both are connected to Duane Street.
William Walsh - interview date 11 January 2002. Ladder 1. Duane Street.
We received a run about 8:30 in the morning for a gas leak up at Lispenard Street and Church. We were operating at that box along with Engine 7, Battalion 1 and Ladder Company 8. I believe 55 Engine was there also, maybe Engine 24. I'm not [sure]. After about 15 minutes, we conclude our operations there. Lispenard is about one block south of Canal Street. I believe the chief gave the code for a gas leak, 1040, code 1. All the units were about to go 108 when we heard this loud roar. Everybody thought or at least to me it sounded as though there was going to be a Con Edison steam explosion. This was about a quarter to 9, I'd say. So everybody looked up to where they thought they heard the sound coming from, and we saw an American Airlines plane. To me it looked as though it was going treetop level right down West Street. Then he appeared to rise a little bit. We were under the impression he looked like he was going down, but we didn't hear any mechanical difficulty. We couldn't figure out why an American Airlines plane would be so low in downtown Manhattan. We sort of expected him to veer off and go into the Hudson. But he just rose a little bit, his altitude, leveled off, and he was headed straight for the Trade Center. So just before he got to the Trade Center, it seemed as though he gained power. We were just watching this airplane on target for the World Trade Center. All of a sudden, boom, he disappears into the Trade Center. You hear this sickening noise as if two pieces of fiberglass had hit. You hear this loud explosion. He just disappeared into the Trade Center. You could see a huge fireball come out of where he had hit. I guess it was about 10 stories high of brown smoke coming out and thousands of pieces of paper being blown through the other side of the World Trade Center.
Starts off in the past tense. (received)
Switches to the present tense. (conclude)
Switches back to the past tense. (heard)
All the above is an indication of story telling.
At no point is "I" used in relation to the plane.
"we couldn't figure out" - speaks for others.
Identifies an AA plane despite only seeing it for a few seconds.
"this loud roar" instead of "a loud roar".
Objects do not have a gender. (I know he's referring to the pilot but it's inappropriate language considering what is alleged to have happened.)
Inappropriate use of "just" in "just watching" = minimisation.
Inappropriate use of "this" in "this airplane" (indicates closeness to the subject instead of distance from it)
"on target" - how could he tell where it was headed?
Switches back to the present tense. (disappears)
Planes do not disappear.
Switches back to past tense. (disappeared)
Inappropriate use of "just" in "just disappeared" = minimisation
Switches to "you".
How could he see that it was paper from where he was standing?
Why not mention that what he saw was on film?
Fabrication and deception indicated.
Thomas Spinard - Interview date 11 January 2002. Engine 7. Duane Street.
I relieved the chauffeur probably about 8:20 or so. We got a box on Church and Leonard (sic) of an odor of gas. So Engine 7 and Ladder 1, Battalion 1, responds. It turned out to be a false alarm. As we were at the box, a plane passes us overhead real low. You could hear it; you could feel it. We turned around, and it just impacted the building, building one. With that, everybody got on the rig. We started driving.
Deliberately vague timings.
At no point is a personal pronoun used in relation to the plane.
Starts off in the past tense. (relieved)
Switches to present tense. (responds)
Switches back to past tense. (turned out)
Switches back to present tense. (passes)
Switches to "you".
Switches back to past tense. (turned, impacted)
Use of "just" - minimisation.
"started driving" - incomplete action.
Why not mention that what he saw was on film?
Fabrication and deception indicated.
Spinard also supports Casaliggi's claim that he saw the second plane strike.
Overall, the timings for the call out to the gas leak are:
Pfeifer - 8.15 or so.
Borrillo - no time.
Casaliggi - no time.
Curran - call came at 8. Run at 8.30.
Walsh - 8.30.
Spinard - 8.20 or so.
As Pfeifer, Borrillo, Casaliggi, Walsh and Spinard are all from the same firehouse and their call out is on the Naudet "documentary" there should be
an exact time in all of their statements.
All their statements show deception and/or fabrication.
All their statements are without the personal pronoun "I" in relation to the sighting of a plane (using "it" doesn't count).
Various witnesses change tenses, an indication of
story telling.
No-one mentions being filmed or being with Jules Naudet that day.
The number one rule is "follow the pronouns". This rule (which comes directly from law enforcement) might help us all spot deception a lot more easily in our efforts to prove media fakery. The other markers for deception and/or fabrication take practice, along with a good grounding in the rules of English language, but anyone can use them.