It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Sam Danner controversy is over!
12 August 2006
On Friday, 11 April 2006, WingTV talked with Russell Pickering to put the Sam Danner issue to rest. They also provided their interview with Sam Danner.
Their interview is at the WingTV site (wingtv.net... ) for a few days, and then it should move to: 911underground.com...
WingTV also has two articles about Danner:
My information about the Danner / Flight 77 Controversy
Part 1: the first interview with Sam Danner on June 29, 2006 www.erichufschmid.net...
Part 2: the fight between Sam Danner and Matthew Danner www.erichufschmid.net...
Part 3: messages from Russell Pickering www.erichufschmid.net...
Part 4: this article.
Did Sam Danner lie?
Let's consider both possibilities
1) Sam was telling the truth, but has given up fighting his family
In this scenario, Sam was telling the truth as he remembers it. However, some of his facts and figures may have become mixed up due to the passage of 5 years, the morphine pill he takes every day for his back pain, and his recent chemotherapy.
Furthermore, he recently watched the Loose Change video many times, and he had been discussing the attack on the Internet for months, so his memories may have become tainted by that recent information.
If Sam was telling the truth, why would he now claim to be lying?
All of you who are reading this document have probably been insulted by your family members, co-workers, and friends when you discussed 9/11, and especially if you mentioned Israeli involvement or the issue of Zionism.
Therefore, we would expect the Danner family to be upset when Sam publicly accused the government of lying about Flight 77.
Confessions under torture cannot be trusted
Practically the entire human race has discovered that you cannot torture confessions out of people because most people will confess to anything in order to stop the torture. Does this concept apply to Sam Danner?
Sam says that his marriage was never perfect, but speaking publicly about 9/11 caused his wife to demand a separation. His son Matthew was also upset, and was soon publicly accusing him of lying. We could say that Sam has been emotionally tortured by his son and wife.
Sam claims that two men with sunglasses in a black SUV with government license plates and a metal grill on the front deliberately bumped into the rear of his car while he was driving home. Sam was pushed off the road into the grass, but was not hurt. He referred to it as a "Pitt Maneuver".
Sam said he did not bother waiting around for the police, so there is no record of this incident. Therefore, we must wonder if Sam is telling the truth about this Pitt Maneuver. If he is, we could say that employees of the American government were also torturing Sam.
Several time before his latest confession, Sam sent several of us e-mail messages that could be described as a man under pressure. One of his sarcastic confessions is in this document: SamDannerResponds3Aug2006.html
His sarcastic confession could be described as a sign that he was starting to give in to the emotional torture. His final confession could be described as a sign that he finally reached his breaking point and decided to say whatever is necessary in order to stop the torture.
What should we do now?
Unless other witnesses come forward to verify Sam's story, I think the best thing is for us to leave Sam and his family alone, and hope that Sam can return to a somewhat normal life.
By the way, if Sam was telling the truth, then all of the people who were "exposing" Sam as a liar (e.g., Russell Pickering and WingTV) are either lousy investigators, or member of the criminal network.
Matthew played all three complete voice messages to me. I think that those three voice messages were edited. If Matthew did not edit those messages, that means somebody did it for him. Who was it? Who has Matthew been in contact with?
Will the Useful Idiots ever wise up?
It is possible that Lee Harvey Oswald knew some of the people involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. If Oswald had been more intelligent, he would have blurted out the names of the people and what they had done.
Tim McVeigh probably knew some of the people involved in the Oklahoma bombing scam. If he had been more intelligent, he could have blurted out some of the names of the people and what they had done.
If Sam Danner is telling the truth, that means there are people, possibly his son, who can identify some members of this criminal network. Will these people keep quiet?
However, if Matthew or somebody else were to come forward with information on what is happening with Sam Danner, would Americans support him? Or would most Americans tremble in fear when they read the news report that the person committed suicide by shooting himself in the head five times?
So far Harold Rosenthal has been proven correct. Specifically, most goyim have absolutely no courage. When a wolf chases after a sheep, the other sheep run away in fear. Most Goyim behave the same way when a Zionist chases after one of us.
2) Sam lied to us earlier, but he is honest now
Consider the dilemma this puts us in.
When somebody confesses that he lied to you, wouldn't you wonder if his confession is honest?
Sam Danner is claiming to be a liar, but if he is a liar, why should we believe his confession?
Sam claims that he lied about seeing an aircraft hit the Pentagon, but he says he is honest about going to the Pentagon and picking up scraps. But if he lied about seeing the aircraft, why should we believe he was there to pick up scraps?
Photos show that the roads near the crash site were blocked so that helicopters, ambulances, fire trucks, and mysterious government agents could get in and out of the area. Therefore, In order for Danner to get to the Pentagon after the crash, he either had to arrive after the roads were un-blocked, or he had to park a distance away and walk to the Pentagon.
In his confession, Sam said, "I did go down to the Pentagon, but I don't feel that this is the time to discuss it."
What good is a vague confession? Imagine your child telling you,
"Okay, I lied about arriving at school at 8 AM, but I was at school later in the day. However, I don't feel that this is the time to discuss it."
We should consider that Sam doesn't want to discuss when he arrived at the Pentagon because:
a) He never went to the Pentagon; i.e., he is lying about everything.
b) He was at the Pentagon at the time of the crash and is lying about lying; i.e., he was telling the truth when he said he saw the aircraft.
If Sam is lying about any of his story, he is making a fool of himself, embarrassing his family, and disrupting his life for... for what? What does he gain in return? How does anybody benefit by pretending to be a witness to 9/11?
If Sam is lying, I would conclude that he is either suffering from a serious emotional disorder, or he is working with the criminal network.
If Sam is suffering from an emotional problem, we should just drop the entire issue and ignore him.
If Sam is working with the criminal network, I suppose this was an attempt to create confusion, waste our time, and give people an excuse to criticize whoever talked about his story, such as me.
It doesn't make any difference what Sam says!
If I was using Sam's testimony as evidence to support a theory, then I should investigate Sam to ensure that he is telling the truth.
However, there is absolutely nothing that I have changed as result of Sam's story!
Sam is not one of my research projects. Rather, I simply let him tell his story. Likewise, Christopher Bollyn and Michael Piper let him tell his story.
None of us can determine with certainty if somebody is lying to us. An interesting example is the former German official Andreas von Bulow. After the September 11 attack, Bollyn talked to him. Bollyn quoted him as saying:
"95% of the work of the intelligence agencies around the world is deception and disinformation"
This creates a dilemma because von Bulow was a high level manager of the German secret agency, so if 95% of what he did was deception and disinformation, why should we believe anything he says? He claims to be retired, but how do we know that's not deception, also?
Have you noticed that many of the "experts" who appear on television to talk about Al Qaeda are "ex"-CIA? Why should we believe anybody is ex-CIA? If 95% of what these people say is deception, why should we believe anything they say?
The September 11 attack was a very big crime, so we should expect the criminal network to be struggling to confuse us. There is no possible way for individual citizens -- such as me and you -- to determine who is telling the truth and who is lying.
Perhaps Sam Danner was told to pretend to be a witness to Flight 77, and perhaps Russell Pickering was told to let the story spread a bit, and then expose Danner as a liar. If so, both Danner and Pickering are Useful Idiots for the criminal network.
Why are Pickering and WingTV trying to expose Sam Danner as a liar?
Russell Pickering and WingTV are putting a lot of effort into exposing Sam Danner as a liar, and into criticizing me for not figuring out that Danner is a liar.
Compare their attitude towards Sam Danner to their attitude towards the death of Michael Zebuhr. I think Zebuhr's death is suspicious, and that it deserves an investigation:
However, most of the 9/11 truth seekers believe the murder was just a boring, routine act of violence of no importance.
In fact, I was severely criticized by WingTV on March 29, 2006. You can hear us argue about this issue here:
Look for: 2006-03-29 Eric Hufschmid: 9-11 Scholar Murder Blowout
Think about this:
• WingTV does not want Michael Zebuhr's murder to be investigated, but they do want Danner to be investigated for possibly lying about seeing an aircraft hit the Pentagon.
• WingTV reprimands me for not investigating Sam Danner, and they reprimand me for suggesting we do an investigation of Zebuhr's murder.
The behavior of WingTV makes sense if WingTV is working with the criminal network.
Specifically, if Zebuhr was killed by the crime network, then of course that network would try to convince us that there is no reason to investigate it.
However, they would want us to investigate Sam Danner regardless of whether Danner is honest or a liar! If that confuses you, here is a summary:
• If Danner is honest, then he is helping to expose the crime; he identifed one of the members (Erkstein or Eckstein); and he may inspire other witnesses to come forward. The crime network would want to stop Danner immediately, and they would want to intimidate other witnesses by letting them watch Danner get attacked.
• If Danner is part of the network, then of course the network would want to expose him.
Furthermore, if Russell Pickering is working for the same group of criminals as the producers of Loose Change, that would explain why Pickering praised the Loose Change Pentagon forum:
The attack on Danner and me is out of proportion
Russell Pickering and WingTV have provided a lot of interviews and articles that are extremely critical of Sam Danner and myself.
The entire world has some very serious problems to deal with, such as Zionism and uranium contamination. Sam Danner is not one of our important problems.
However, if Russell Pickering and WingTV are part of the crime network, then they would be looking for a way to convince people to follow the criminals instead of people such as me.
The criminals are probably searching for some mistake I've made so that they can hold my mistake up and announce to the world:
"Hey everybody! Look what we found! Hufschmid just made a mistake! He is a sloppy researcher! You cannot trust him! Ignore everything he says and come over to us! We are the source of truth!"
When Daryl Smith and Christopher Bollyn heard about Sam Danner, both of them called me on the phone and calmly discussed the issue of whether we can trust Sam Danner. They did not go on a tirade that Sam Danner is definitely a liar, and that I am a terrible researcher for not exposing Danner.
Discrepancies don't prove Danner lied
Russell Pickering lists lots of discrepancies in Sam's testimony. The problem is that every witness to every event has discrepancies, especially after five years.
Sam also says that he takes a morphine pill every day for his back pain, and had just finished chemotherapy.
When I was in sixth grade I was sitting in a chair watching television. Both the chair and I floated up to the ceiling. Years later it occurred to me that it was due to the medication I was taking at the time.
Russell Pickering claims to be a great researcher, but he seems to be merely looking for reasons to condemn Sam Danner. Anybody who is seriously interested in investigating Danner should to do some research into the possible effect that drugs might have on Danner's mind.
Even if the drugs are having no effect on Sam's mind, discrepancies in testimony do not prove the witness is lying. Instead, discrepancies only prove that:
• The human memory is inaccurate; our memory is not a video recorder.
• Our memories are not memories but rather "interpretations".
The attack of me is extreme
Both Russell Pickering and WingTV did more than complain that Sam Danner is a liar. They also tried to convince the audience that I am a terrible researcher.
Here is an excerpt of that section of the interview. My description of the excerpt follows.
The excerpt starts with Lisa complaining that she has watched the quality of my work "just plunge through the toilet". What a wonderful image that brings up! Thanks, Lisa!
I have to wonder what Lisa would say about me if I had interviewed Bill Schnoebelen instead of Sam Danner. Schnoebelen is an ex-vampire:
Victor and Lisa interviewed the ex-vampire. You can find their interview at the site listed earlier:
Look for: 2006-01-27 Bill Schnoebelen Interview
Victor and Lisa also recommend the ex-vampire's 9-DVD set:
"It's absolutely riveting... It's amazing...It's mind blowing. You'll sit there and you won't take your eyes off this video... It also has a very enlightening or fulfilling, empowering message. !!!"
By the way, I suggest putting all of the other people who praised the ex-vampire's DVDs on a list of suspects.
Let's assume Lisa is correct that the quality of my work has been decreasing. What would be responsible for this decrease?
Lisa implies that it because I have been "hanging around" with Daryl Bradford Smith.
Apparently Smith is a bad influence; one of those bad kids in the neighborhood who leads the good kids into smoking.
Lisa then goes on to say she has a sense that I'm trying to discredit Christopher Bollyn by feeding him bad information.
As I was listening to Lisa, my first reaction was to write an email to complain about her reckless, unfounded, baseless, irresponsible, and speculative accusations, but before I could click my mouse button Victor explained that it is me who has lately been full of speculation, innuendo, and accusations, and that my articles are reckless, unfounded, baseless, and irresponsible to the max.
Well, Victor certainly set me straight in regards to who is the reckless jerk! Thanks, Victor!
Next Victor and Lisa praised Russell Pickering for being a wonderful Pentagon researcher.
My goodness! All this time I thought Pickering was pumping out deception. Victor set me straight, once again.
Then Victor and Lisa explained how I "back off" and "unravel" on live interviews. Victor said I have a "very pronounced passive aggressive technique". Are those insults, or compliments?
Then Lisa said that I act like I'm being attacked. Well, what should I do? Act as if I am being praised?
Then they reach their climax. Victor said they can understand why John Stadtmiller wants to knock my teeth down my throat; why Matthew Danner wants to knock my block off, and why Lisa wants to slap me in my face!
Wow! I am a terrible person, and I am hurting the 9/11 "movement"!
I cannot state for sure if Sam Danner is telling the truth, but I am certain that those voicemail messages were edited.
If Danner was part of the criminal network, they would not need to edit his messages since he could record real messages. They would only need to edit his messages if he was either telling the truth, or he lied due to emotional disorders.
However, there is no sense in discussing whether or not Sam is lying. Until more witnesses come forward, we will never resolve the issue, so all discussions on this issue are a waste of our time.
I think a more important discussion is: What are the motives of Russell Pickering and WingTV?
Russell Pickering's web site:
Mark Bilk is currently taking care of Pickering's web site, and he maintains the web site for Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone:
Christopher Bollyn took a look at the Bilk family. Mark's mother, Mary Cohen, was born in Russia. When the family arrived in the US, they told the customs officials that their language was "Hebrew". Bollyn points out that most of the people in that era who were speaking Hebrew were part of the Zionist movement.
Speaking Hebrew doesn't prove that Mark Bilk or his family is part of the criminal network, but there are an amazing number of Ashkenazis pretending to be 9/11 researchers.
Almost all of the Ashkenazis deflect attention away from Zionists and onto George Bush or the ever popular "Globalists".
Daryl Smith believes that Victor Thorn's real last name, Makufka, is evidence that he is Ashkenazi. Would Makufka please provide information on his family -- and Lisa's family -- so we can check out his claim that he is not Ashkenazi?
Almost all of the Ashkenazi "researchers" of 9/11 are Holocaust Promoters and Zionist Deniers. They are also Anti-Goyim. Unfortunately, we don't have the equivalent of the Goyim Defense League to stand up to their hate speech, their racism, and their Anti-Goyism.
Why would WingTV expose Israel's role in 9/11?
The Zionists are determined to remain in control of our world. One of the techniques they use to lure people to their web sites is to provide some of the same information that we provide. Most people don't notice that they are not saying anything new or original, or that they are not even saying as much as we say.
For example, WingTV recently printed a small book about Israel's involvement in 9/11. This type of information has been available for years. Two examples:
By offering a book that contains some of the same information that we provide, they can fool some people into thinking that they are researchers who are exposing Israel's involvement.
Take a look at the information from WingTV. Is WingTV really exposing Israel's involvement in 9/11? Or does it seem as if the criminal network told them to take attention away from those of us they have no control over? Wouldn't that explain WingTV's attempt to convince you that I have become reckless and irresponsible to the max?
If you cannot figure out who among us can be trusted, you may end up following one of the criminals. We need people who can differentiate between true researchers and the criminals who are trying to get control of the investigation.
Have you seen Rense.com? Occasionally you will find an article by Christopher Bollyn posted on that site. I assumed that Bollyn posted those articles, so one day I decided to ask Bollyn why he posts on Rense. Bollyn told me that he has never posted anything on that site. If fact, he did not even know his articles were on that site.
Look at all the Bollyn articles at Rense:
If Rense is part of the criminal network, why would they post so many of Bollyn's articles?
Posting these articles serves several purposes:
• The regular readers of Rense will find lots of articles from lots of people. They will assume that Rense provides them with everything they need so that they don't have to bother looking at any other site.
• Since the articles are already on the Internet, the Zionists may as well use the articles to lure people to their site.
• Rense avoids posting the articles that are really damaging to the Zionists.
The Rense site certainly does provide some information about the world, but most of what the material is deception. Ideally, people would avoid that site, and all sites that support Rense.
We could drive these criminals out of business without a single shot being fired. All we have to do is stop supporting them! Don't go to their web sites, don't buy their videos, don't subscribe to their newspapers or magazines, and don't go to their Hollywood movies.
Bollyn wrote three articles about 9/11 in May 2006. Apparently his employer, the American Free Press, did not publish them! Bollyn has complained about this, so they might run them eventually. Here they are:
The American Free Press boasts about being our last source of uncensored news, but they do censor information. They may be more honest than the New York Times, but that is not saying much.
Think about this: the people at the American Free Press are censoring some of Bollyn's articles, which means they don't have the ability to stand up to this criminal network. If they cannot stand up to this network, how can an individual like Sam Danner stand up to it?
The American people are easily bribed, deceived, frightened, and blackmailed. If we don't find more people with some courage, and more people who can see through the deception, we are doomed. So please, help us find those people, and warn them about the deception.
Most "truth seekers" are liars!
Most 9/11 investigators and most of the people in the media, whether it is the conventional media, or alternative media, are part of the Zionist criminal network. Just take a look at anybody in the media and follow his connections to other people.
There are already articles about Alex Jones, such as:
So I will give you another example. Take a look at the writers at the Canada Free Press:
One of the writers, Douglas Hagmann, has the site:
This site pretends to be a patriotic American site. However, it constantly puts out frightening messages that we are about to be attacked by terrorists. Some of their writers are listed here:
Lee Kaplan also writes for the Canada Free Press, and he also writes for Hagmann's homelandsecurity.com, as well as Frontpagemag.com.
Kaplan is the founder of DAFKA, which is described as "Pro-Zionist information and articles aimed at countering Palestinian and anti-US activism...".
Doug Hagmann also works with Steve Quayle to provide us with frightening stories of upcoming terrorist attacks.
Steve Quayle also provides idiotic theories, such as giant species of humans up to 36 feet tall:
Steve Quayle should remind you of Jeff Rense, who also mixes some serious information with lots of nonsense.
For another example, take a look at antiwar.com
This site was created by Eric Garris and Justin Raimondo in 1995. Take a look at those two people. Here is the Zionist view of them:
Eric Garris help to create LewRockwell.com, and Justin Raimondo was part of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
So take a look at LewRockwell.com:
And the Ludwig von Mises Institute:
Morgan Reynolds and Paul Craig Roberts are two of the people in the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Morgan Reynolds has been hinting that the "blue screen theory" makes sense, and Paul Craig Roberts routinely tries to imply that President Bush is responsible for all the world's problems.
Trying to follow all of the associations quickly becomes overwhelming for a single individual. However, you should be able to realize that you can identify nests of criminals in this manner.
To summarize, take a look at the information at these sites:
• Ludwig von Mises Institute
There is a lot of information at those three sites, and they have lots of different people writing articles. With so many different writers, those sites should provide a very thorough explanation of 9/11, the attack on the USS Liberty, Zionism, the Holocaust, and the Apollo moon landing. However, they provide almost nothing about these issues. How could this be a coincidence?
All of these sites are deceptive. They appear to be against the war, or for some noble cause, but they only post articles that keep you ignorant about Zionism. They also deflect attention to George Bush, Neocons, Globalists, or Illuminati.
You can use this techniques with almost anybody. Take a look at the people who write for WorldNetDaily, or look at the guests who get favorable treatment by Coast-To-Coast radio, or the hosts and guests on the Air America radio show.
Follow the connections between all of these people and you can identify criminal nests.
The criminal network is not an amoebae
Many people seem to think that the criminal network is a highly unified group of people that blindly follow one leader. Many people find it difficult to understand why there appears to be a difference between George Soros, Al Franken, Joe Lieberman, and Paul Wolfowitz.
Look at the crime gangs of the early 20th century. Criminals within a gang do not have the exact same opinions. Furthermore, they frequently fight with one another for control of the group. They sometimes turn one another into the police, and sometimes they kill one another.
Do you really think the criminal network that did 9/11 is much better behaved than the gangs of Al Capone's era?
There is a very good chance that some of the members of the 9/11 gang will turn one another in to the police, kill one another, and double-cross one another,
The criminal network that did 9/11 certainly has at least thousands of members, and probably thousands more when you count all their blackmailed Useful Idiots. We should assume that some of the members will double-cross each other, fight for control of the group, and even kill each other.
So don't be confused when you find one group of them, such as the people at antiwar.com, criticizing some other group, such as WorldNetDaily. Some of these fights may be staged, but some of them may be real fights among the criminals as they fight each other for control of the horde of stupid sheeple.