The fight between the Danners has begun!
4 August 2006
|Update August 2008
Sam Danner admitted to me a few months ago that he didn't see the plane hit the Pentagon, and that he arrived at the Pentagon a few hours after the crash. He has also been making lots of contradictory remarks to me and other people by e-mail, and on message boards.
Sam doesn't have any sensible explanation for why he lied. Because he and his son are protective of Israel, my guess is that his wife (in the photo) is Jewish, and since they were having marital problems, I suspect that she and/or her Jewish relatives decided to sacrifice Sam for the good of Israel. I suspect that they convinced Sam to pretend that he was a witness to the crash at the Pentagon in order to discredit people like me, or to confuse the issue of what happened that day.
Regardless of why Sam Danner lied to us, the lesson to learn from this and other deception regarding 9/11 is that when a crime is enormous, we should expect the criminals to go to tremendous lengths to confuse us.
If you help us find people who are tired of the wars, deception, false
flag operations, and other crimes, we can put an end to the Zionist crime
network and other organized crime gangs, so help spread the information
and warn people about the deception.
He responds to his son,
Audio was recorded 3 Aug 2006
He releases a voice message to prove his father is a liar
Voice message released 4 Aug 2006
After I posted my interview with Sam Danner (on June 29, 2006), he was interviewed on the radio shows of Michael Collins Piper, Christopher Bollyn, and Alex Jones.
Michael Piper announced that his interview with Danner was one of the most popular shows on the RBN network.
However, on July 19 Sam Danner's son, Matthew, told me in a phone call that his father was lying about being a witness to the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon.
Matthew said that his father may have driven down to the Pentagon later that morning, in which case it is possible that his father picked up some scraps on the lawn, but his father did not personally observe the aircraft.
Matthew also called Piper's radio show to announce that his father was
lying, and he posted messages on the Internet to let the world know that
his father was lying.
Who do we believe?
Is Sam Danner lying? Or is Matthew lying?
Before accusing anybody of lying, let's complicate this issue with another possibility! Namely, that some of Sam's memories of the September 11 attack were tainted by recent information.
The attack was almost 5 years ago, but it was only a couple months ago that he began discussing the attack on the Internet. Also, he watched the Loose Change video many times.
This means that the images from the Loose Change video are very fresh memories, and so is the information he picked up from the Internet. Furthermore, he just recently finished chemotherapy, and is still taking medications.
Is it possible that some of the images from the Loose Change video and some of the information from the Internet have tainted Sam Danner's memories of the attack?
If so, then Sam could be telling the truth without realizing that some of his memories are tainted by the recent information, and his son may be jumping to the assumption that his father is lying on purpose.
How do we settle this dispute? Matthew has decided to release one of
three phone messages that he has on his cell phone.
The phone messages!
On July 24, I was talking to Matthew on the phone, and he let me listen to three phone messages that Sam had left on his cell phone. In these messages Sam admitted that only 65% of what he said was true, and he was asking Matthew to let him have his fun.
Matthew does not yet want to release all three of these messages to the world because he does not want to embarrass his father.
However, he has released the beginning of one message. Here it is:
That message is 100% proof that Sam is a liar!
However, let's make this issue more confusing. What if that voice message has been edited?
It is extremely easy to edit audio messages, especially of people
who put gaps between their words, and who have lots of "umms", "ahhh",
and other noises. As an example, I edited Sam's message and created this
shorter version in about 30 minutes:
You can try it yourself, and with software that is free!
Download the audacity software:
Then give it a try!
Note: If you want to create mp3 files, you also need to
It is more difficult to edit video, but many people have made comedy videos by editing President Bush's State of the Union speeches.
A more difficult feat is to edit Bush's speeches into
Getting back to the fight between the Danners, Matthew did not release
the entire message from Sam, and he is not releasing the other two messages
yet. Should he release those messages? Is it any of our business? YES
to both questions!
Somebody is committing a crime!
Lying about being a witness to the 9/11 crime and giving false reports about it should be considered a serious crime. So if Sam is lying, Sam ought to be arrested.
Matthew has three phone messages in which Sam admits that he is lying
about part of his story. However, Matthew does not want to release all
of that evidence. This means that Matthew is hiding some evidence of his
Hiding evidence of a crime is itself a crime
Matthew could be considered to be committing a crime because he is hiding the evidence of his father's crime!
We can all understand the reluctance of a child to turn in his own parents,
but the 9/11 attack is a very serious crime, and we need to identify the
people who are lying about it.
What if Matthew Danner is a victim?
At first glance it appears that the only people involved in this fight are Sam Danner and his son Matthew.
Most of us do not find anything strange about this because our own relatives, neighbors, and coworkers try to stop us from talking about 9/11, and they insult us as conspiracy nuts, un-American, terrorist sympathizers, anti-Semites, racists, or Bush bashers.
However, in this particular case we should consider the possibility
that Matthew Danner is a victim of
the crime network. Have you listened to Kay Griggs (watch
the "Desperate Wives" videos):
Or John DeCamp:
Griggs and DeCamp explain that the crime network looks for weaknesses in people, and then they try to exploit them. For example, If someone has a tendency to gamble, get drunk, or experiment with sex or drugs, then they may encourage the person to do it to excess so that they can be blackmailed over it.
The younger a person is, the easier it is to trick him into doing something that he is embarrassed about later. This is especially true if they can encourage the victim to have a few drinks beforehand, or if they add mind-altering drugs to the victim's food or drinks.
Have you considered the evidence that most of the prostitution, drugs,
gambling, and pornography are coming from the same crime network that gave
us the 9/11 attack?
If the crime network fooled Matthew into doing something embarrassing
or illegal, they could be blackmailing Matthew into turning against his
father. That would make both Matthew and his father a victim of this
Exploiting a person's fear
If they discover that Matthew is afraid that the government will kill his father in order to silence him, they might take advantage of that fear. For example, while Sam is driving home from work, they may come up close to Sam's car in a car with government license plates and gently hit Sam's car in its rear corner to force him off the road. They could then tell Matthew,
"That was just a warning. Next time we will kill him. You had better convince your father to stop talking."
The crime network may have provided Matthew with edited voice messages
to "prove" that his father is a liar.
We should protect witnesses!
If Matthew Danner is a victim, and if we do nothing to help him, we are letting the crime network destroy yet another family.
Many people think that only 3000 people died from the 9/11 attack, but
people are still dying from health problems caused by breathing the demolition
debris. Do you know about this yet:
If the American people were responsible and considerate, they would want to understand what is happening to the Danner family. If Sam Danner is telling the truth, we should protect him and his family.
How can we stop crime when witnesses are killed, threatened, blackmailed,
or frightened? How can we expect other witnesses to come forward after
they watch the Danner family be destroyed?
Who is Russell Pickering?
A man named Russell Pickering claims to be a 9/11 investigator. He has
Pickering told me that his site is registered to Mark S. Bilk
because Bilk offered to take it over when Pickering was thinking of abandoning
it. Bilk has this site:
If you have been listening to the Michael Piper radio show, you would have heard him call a few times to question the honesty of Sam Danner.
Have you noticed that the people who doubt the honesty of Sam Danner never doubt the honesty of Matthew Danner? Why not doubt the honesty of all of the witnesses to 9/11?
Furthermore, why not doubt the honesty of Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, Dave von Kleist, the Scholars For 9/11 Truth, and other investigators? Why do they doubt the honesty of only Sam Danner?
When I question the honesty of the "truth seekers", I am reprimanded
for "dividing the movement", "starting fights", and "attacking" people:
It seems to me that the people who attack Sam Danner are the same people who avoid the possibility that there may be Israelis involved in 9/11.
Russell Pickering implies PNAC, the Project for the New American
Century, is responsible for 9/11:
How could the tiny PNAC group install explosives into the World Trade Center towers and Building 7? How do they know where to put the explosives? How did they get the US military, NORAD, the FBI, and other agencies to allow the attack? How are they continuing to stop those agencies from solving this crime? How did they get the media of North America, Australia, and Europe to suppress all evidence of this crime?
Blaming PNAC for 9/11 is as ridiculous as blaming "The Bilderbergs"
or the CFR:
Greg Szymanski and Eric Jon Phelps blame the Vatican:
Alex Jones prefers to blame vague groups, such as "Globalists" or "Luciferian
I would describe all of these "truth seekers" as liars. They are not simply making mistakes. Their theories have no supporting evidence.
If Russell Pickering was a real investigator, he would also be concerned
that Matthew Danner is lying, and he would be concerned that Matthew Danner
has become a victim of the crime network.
When Pickering calls into the Michael Piper radio show, he appears to be a serious 9/11 researcher. However, a real investigator would ask Sam Danner for clarification of confusing issues. A real investigator does not pressure a witness into admitting that he is a liar.
The colored box below has one of the many goofy messages that Pickering
sent to Sam Danner. I put an important sentence from Pickering in red:
Think carefully about that sentence in red. Is that the type of remark a real investigator would say to a witness?
Imagine the police department in which the detectives complain about throwing their work away every time another witness comes forward!
A real investigator is grateful when a witness comes forward. A real investigator does not tell a witness to stop lying so that his investigation does not go to waste.
If a witness lied, a real investigator would simply prove that the witness
lied. Thus none of his work would go to waste!
Is Russell Pickering a lousy investigator?
What are the chances that Pickering is simply a lousy investigator? I think he is trying to cover up the 9/11 attack.
Does he work with the crime network? Has he been blackmailed, threatened, or bribed into helping them? Or is he trying to help America through some sort of counter deception?
I have no idea why Pickering is behaving so strangely, but it is obvious that he cannot be trusted. Therefore, all of the people he promotes have to be considered untrustworthy, also.
For example, Pickering has written about the Pentagon with Mark Sugrue,
who is described as "a researcher in Royal Holloway, University of London,
soon to complete a Ph.D.":
Mark Sugrue to the list of
Everyone who exposes 9/11 is insulted
Those of us who have tried to explain 9/11 to our family, friends, coworkers, and neighbors have discovered that most people insult us as conspiracy nuts, racists, un-American, anti-Semitic, or Bush Bashers.
Sam was not expecting this abuse. There were several times in the past
couple weeks when Sam became so frustrated with the arguments with his
family members that he decided to stop talking about 9/11. He sent out
the following somewhat sarcastic e-mail this morning (he obviously did
not check it for spelling errors):
Fortunately, later that day Sam decided he would not give in to the pressure. He called me, and I told him he could explain what is going on, and I would post it on my site.
In this phone interview, Sam complains that Russell Pickering had been calling and sending e-mail quite frequently during the past day. On the phone to me, Pickering said he was simply trying to respond to a phone call from Sam, and that he was trying over and over to reach Sam.
Therefore, it is possible that Sam misinterpreted the high volume of phone calls and e-mails from Pickering as harassment, when in reality Pickering was just very anxious to return the phone call. Of course, this brings up the issue of why Pickering is so anxious to talk to Sam.
Anyway, here is Sam's response. You should be able to sense his frustration:
Michael Piper's radio shows are here:
The two shows that provide info specific to this issue are:
• Thu., August 3, 2006
Russell Pickering is in this show. Also, notice that a person named Lonnie who suggests killing the people who did 9/11:
Sam Danner is on this show. Notice that a woman calls in to complain about the obsession with Sam Danner, and eventually she lets us know the purpose of her call: she wants us to focus on the Vatican!Can you see the pattern?
People are trying to stop Sam Danner from talking. Some people accuse Danner of lying, and some use emotional manipulation, such as "You are obsessing with Danner!"
Why are these people trying to convince us to stop listening to and talking about Sam Danner? Because if Danner is telling the truth, the people promoting other theories are either stupid (not likely) or part of the criminal network.
Think about that previous statement carefully. To rephrase it, if Sam Danner is honest and accurate, that means Alex Jones, Mike Rivero, Karl Schwarz, and most other "truth seekers" are very likely to be liars rather than merely stupid or mistaken.
Can you see why so many "truth seekers" want Sam Danner to keep his
mouth shut? Can you see why they would try to turn his own children against
Sam Danner doesn't support Dylan Avery
Dylan Avery said that he was going to make a new version of his Loose Change video, and then release it in movie theaters. However, Avery has been promoting Karl Schwarz's theory that an A3 Skywarrior crashed into the Pentagon.
Would the people who are funding that movie want to spend all that money and then have Sam Danner make it look stupid? Don't you think that Avery and his secret financiers would want to make sure that Sam Danner keeps his mouth shut?
Why not wonder if the Avery group is working on Matthew?
The 9/11 attack is not a game
The people who did it are not fooling around. They are not going to sit by while Sam Danner exposes them. The people who are funding Dylan Avery's movie are not going to want Sam Danner to make them look like liars.
Are you going to do anything to help protect the witnesses? What can you do? You can help us spread this information! Encourage more people to come forward. Send your local police department and military bases some e-mail messages to grow up and start acting like men. Tell them that they are supposed to stop crime, not run away from it.
One final point. Even if Sam Danner is lying, nothing changes. There is no evidence in the photographs, news reports, or seismic data that a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon. And there is no airline pilot who can fly a Boeing 757 in downtown Washington, DC only a few feet above cars.
|As I mentioned to Sam Danner
in the first interview: