See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Confessions Of A 911 Hitman
Source:
www.rense.com
URL Source: http://www.rense.com/general73/confess.htm
Published: Oct 15, 2006
Author: Douglas Herman
Post Date: 2006-10-15 23:45:22 by robin
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 3115
Comments: 310
Confessions Of A 911 Hitman And are you sorry that all these faked resource wars have to be concocted so that you can get that oil and live comfortably? Didn't think so.
How & Why I Helped Blow Up The World Trade Center
By Douglas Herman
Exclusive to Rense.com
10-13-6 
MY job was to wire explosives inside the various WTC buildings. We wired buildings 1, 2, 6, and 7. We hardwired some areas and attached explosives and electronic detonators to many other key structural joints. We did this weeks in advance. WTC-7 fell in a classic controlled demolition (See example) but the Twin Towers required a lot more ingenuity. The fellow who planned the actual sequence of detonations is a genius. He was rumored to have been paid seven or eight figures and is a fucking master. Almost like a composer of a symphony orchestra but better. Much better. 
Longtime Rense writer, Douglas Herman wrote the suspense novel, The Guns of Dallas, that features a confessed hitman revealing the perfect scenario for the murder of JFK. The above scenario is fiction but probably far closer to the truth than anything yet offered in the so-called fact based media.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 256.
#5. To: robin (#0)
One of the arguments you hear routinely out of the mouths of the official line spewers is that such an operation couldn't be kept secret because of the enormous numbers of people who would need to be involved. Someone would talk- Larry King would interiew the guy. Bull. Yes- several hundred people would be needed to wire the towers, remove the gold- etc, etc. But what would such people really know? Not damn much. Your average bomb laying technician at the WTC would know absolutely nothing about the people who hired him. We have an "intelligence community" that has had 50 years to develop and mature. There are literally thousands upon thousands of contractors, soldiers of fortune, hitmen, free lancers- all in rolodex files that organizations like the CIA, Mossad, MI6, FSB, South African intelligence etc etc have used for thousands of jobs back and forth. There are men who exist in the shadows who have no ideological motivation and no national allegiance (patriotism is for suckers among these types) and who work for money. They are hired by brokers, hired through old contacts in the various official services they at one time worked for- hired through third and fourth parties so that they have no idea who is really hiring them. Money is transfered by wire accounts- again through three or four middlemen. What do they know? Nothing. The teams would be kept in cells- assigned a leader- they wouldn't even know the names of their other team members for the most part or their cell leader. They would use code names. To them- it would be just another black bag job- on a large scale to be sure- but one of many they had particpated in. These people have no scruples. They don't believe in "innocence". They know the dark underbelly of government and what it is capable of doing. But wouldn't one of them do something stupid and take his payments for helping pull off 9/11 and go to Vegas and blow it in a few days and find himself in need of some money- want to write a book- and make a few million? Yes- and that is exactly the sort of person you would have if anyone came forward- a totally impeachable reprobate who gambles, drinks, and otherwise leads a scummy life- in other words totally unbelievable. Wouldn't Larry King and the MSM pay attention to such a person? Please. When people say that 9/11 couldn't have been a conspiracy because the media would report I have to laugh. Do they mean the same MSM that ran with the government lies on Iraq? That ran stories on WMD and nuke programs from anonymous leakers in the government who then cited their own leaks in the papers on the News Shows as proof that they were true while our media didn't think it important that leakers were using their own leaks to spread misinfo? The press contradicted their own archives form just the mid 90's on WMD in spreading these stories. BLOGGERS were pointing this crap out in 2002! Bloggers picked apart Powell's UN speech and exposed it for the sham it was then! Not our MSM! There is an interview with a 9/11 Scholar on Tucker Carlson's show about his "theories". Carlson starts the interview off by saying the man is immoral and reprehensible for even suggesting these things. And that is the attitude of the MSM toward this story- facts be dammed. Even looking into it is "immoral".
I buy the above guy's confession about as much as I buy those testimonies saying the WMD were taken to Syria. The whole 'buildings brought down by planted explosives' is based on the premise that the USA would not wake up the day after traumatized if only planes crashed into the towers. In other words (to use a Bushisim), the American people are sooooo stupid and dim that the sight of planes slamming into buildings is not horrific enough they need to have these buildings fall down on them for the powers that be to do anything. Trust me, I was across from the WTC and we saw the planes slam into the buildings from our office windows. People were freaking out - the trauma that leads to blind obedience was already there. Americans are stupid but not that stupid that they needed the additional buildings to fall to get them to understand something scary just happened. I don't know if you all are aware of my posting history. I questioned the 9/11 events from day one. The real conspiracy is the fact that these 9/11 Muslims had ties with our intel orgs. Now did our pet Muslims - used by the USA via proxies to fight the Russians and Serbs and Chinese and Indians - go rogue and double cross us? Or were they doing what elements within our power structure wanted? Maybe a little of both? That is the question - not how the buildings fell down - which is self evident. Unlike most Americans I had a few years in the so called "anti-American" trenches digging up the lies the USA told about the situation in Kosovo and Bosnia and the murky American and British alliances with jihadists. (which kept leading to my bannings on freetraderrepublic).
But planes alone could not take down those towers. And NOTHING flew into WTC7. Are you familiar with Dov Zakheim's contribution to a report by PNAC, explaining that a "new Pearl Harbor" is necessary? I know you must already know about the Reichstag fire and the faked invasion of Germany by Poland.
Wrong - chunks of the collapsed towers flew into WTC7.
Wrong - chunks of the collapsed towers flew into WTC7. The Oklahoma City bombing was more damaging to the building and it never fell.... furthermore, the a-bomb dome (made of steel and glass) in Hiroshima, Japan was exposed to thousands of degrees of (nuclear) heat and never crumbled.....
And trees in Tunguska, Siberia that were under the exploding comet in 1903 stayed upright while the trees outward from the air blast were flattened. Pressure down is different from pressure sideways. Physics lesson 101. WTC7 Is just across the street from the Towers. The collapse tore a gash in its side. The diesel tanks for the mayor's emergency command ignited. The building was already a total loss - it fell what was it 12 or so hours later? - so you people who claim he had to pull it down for the insurance money are talking out your holes - the building was already a total loss in that condition.
Still peddling this bullcrap about WTC 7, I see. Got any pics that show the damage you claim? I've never seen any. Diesel fuel will not burn down a steel structure, or haven't you figured that out? http://www.wtc7.net/location.html People who have heard of Building 7 tend to assume that 'ancillary damage' from the collapses of the Twin Towers had something to do with Building 7's collapse. It is important to note that Building 7 was no closer to the towers than any of several other large buildings outside of the WTC complex. Building 7 was the only of the seven buildings with a World Trade Center address that was on a different block. It, along with the 6 other buildings, were completely or largely destroyed on September 11th. No buildings outside of the two turquoise zones in the map to the right suffered more than superficial damage.
It sure is, nothing but a smoke and dust cloud. Where is the structural damage? LOL
See, that was a set up by me of you - lets me post another photo further debunking you.
Oh, yeah, nice charade. That don't mean diddly. Furthermore, it in no way explains the classic demolition collapse of WTC 7. That damage on one corner of the building would never in a million years cause that building to collapse. And you are dreaming if you think you can convince anyone of this on here. Posting this kind of nonsense will only serve for you to get the richly deserved moniker of DISINFORMATIONIST.
You are a demolition's expert? What is your expertise in the manner or are you repeating what websites tell you? Also, you asked me for proof of my statement that there was a large gash in the side of the WTC7 building from the falling debris - so I provided 2 of them. That you did not know there was such a gash speaks volumes on your knowledge (or lack there of) on the condition of the WTC 7 building.
There are no replies to Comment # 256. End Trace Mode for Comment # 256.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#10. To: Burkeman1, Kamala, robin (#5)
(Edited)
#17. To: Destro (#10)
(Edited)
#19. To: robin (#17)
But planes alone could not take down those towers. And NOTHING flew into WTC7.
#246. To: Destro (#19)
But planes alone could not take down those towers. And NOTHING flew into WTC7.
#248. To: maggies mom (#246)
furthermore, the a-bomb dome (made of steel and glass) in Hiroshima, Japan was exposed to thousands of degrees of (nuclear) heat and never crumbled.....
#250. To: Destro, maggies mom (#248)
WTC7 Is just across the street from the Towers. The collapse tore a gash in its side. The diesel tanks for the mayor's emergency command ignited.
Building 7's Location
Building 7 occupied a city block immediately north of the World Trade Center complex. WTC 1 through WTC 6 were on the superblock bounded by West, Church, Liberty, and Vessey Streets. Building 7 was wedged between the Verizon and U.S. Post Office buildings across Vessey Street from the WTC complex. It straddled an electrical substation that filled the first two stories of about half the block. 
The wall of Building 7 closest to the WTC complex was more than 300 feet from the nearest wall of the North Tower. It appears that nearly all of the heavy fallout from the disintegration of the North Tower landed short of Building 7. Building 6 stood between the North Tower and Building 7. 
These photographs show Building 7 in front of the exploding North Tower. It is the square bronze building on the left. Even in the second photo, the nearest of the debris from the tower is several hundred feet behind Building 7.
#251. To: BTP Holdings, maggies mom (#250)
Got any pics that show the damage you claim?
The above photo is very different than the photos you usually see on conspiracy sites.
#252. To: Destro, maggies mom (#251)
The above photo is very different than the photos you usually see on conspiracy sites.
#253. To: BTP Holdings, maggies mom (#252)
(Edited)
sure is, nothing but a smoke and dust cloud. Where is the structural damage? LOL
#255. To: Destro, maggies mom (#253)
See, that was a ste up by me of you - lets me post another photo further debunking you.
#256. To: BTP Holdings, maggies mom (#255)
Furthermore, it in no way explains the classic demolition collapse of WTC 7. That damage on one corner of the building would never in a million years cause that building to collapse
Replies to Comment # 256.