Evan Fairbanks Interview with Jeff Hill
Can be heard here.
A general note about many of these interviews that Hill has with various 9/11 "actors"-- they have a strong feel of being staged in some way. There's almost no emotion, no annoyance, no real impatience. Why are people so willing to talk to this random stranger on the phone for several minutes? Most of his subjects say they are busy, but then spend minute after minute answering fairly mundane questions-- questions that they might easily take offense at.
The Fairbanks interview is very much the same way.
There's just something fake about his attitude here-- particularly at the end.
I wasn't thrilled that Hill disseminated this interview after Fairbanks asked him not to-- but I guess if we assume Fairbanks is a criminal suspect, then I can see how that would override Fairbanks' request.
There's not much in the way of a smoking gun here, but a couple of interesting tidbits.
The camera angle position for the 2nd hit is of course very odd-- and Fairbanks' explanation is not very satisfying. Is being bent at the waist slightly and a wide-angle lens enough to account for the angle? Possible but I tend to doubt it-- why did the man "have" to be in the shot?? Why such an awkward stance anyway if he had a wide-angle lens??
The major discrepancy is Fairbanks' claim that he had the sound off by accident, so that's why there is no sound. Previously it was reported that the sound tape was confiscated by FBI and never given back. And importantly, in my FOIA request to the FBI for the Fairbanks' video AND AUDIO, they never denied having these items.
But overall, in the interview, I get the strong sense that Fairbanks is holding SOMETHING back-- or that the whole thing was staged.
In the real world, wouldn't someone like Fairbanks just tell Hill to get lost-- under the circumstances of the call?
A general note about many of these interviews that Hill has with various 9/11 "actors"-- they have a strong feel of being staged in some way. There's almost no emotion, no annoyance, no real impatience. Why are people so willing to talk to this random stranger on the phone for several minutes? Most of his subjects say they are busy, but then spend minute after minute answering fairly mundane questions-- questions that they might easily take offense at.
The Fairbanks interview is very much the same way.
There's just something fake about his attitude here-- particularly at the end.
I wasn't thrilled that Hill disseminated this interview after Fairbanks asked him not to-- but I guess if we assume Fairbanks is a criminal suspect, then I can see how that would override Fairbanks' request.
There's not much in the way of a smoking gun here, but a couple of interesting tidbits.
The camera angle position for the 2nd hit is of course very odd-- and Fairbanks' explanation is not very satisfying. Is being bent at the waist slightly and a wide-angle lens enough to account for the angle? Possible but I tend to doubt it-- why did the man "have" to be in the shot?? Why such an awkward stance anyway if he had a wide-angle lens??
The major discrepancy is Fairbanks' claim that he had the sound off by accident, so that's why there is no sound. Previously it was reported that the sound tape was confiscated by FBI and never given back. And importantly, in my FOIA request to the FBI for the Fairbanks' video AND AUDIO, they never denied having these items.
But overall, in the interview, I get the strong sense that Fairbanks is holding SOMETHING back-- or that the whole thing was staged.
In the real world, wouldn't someone like Fairbanks just tell Hill to get lost-- under the circumstances of the call?
posted by spooked at 8:45 AM
2 Comments:
The phone calls aren't fake, but believe what you want!
I didn't say that the phone calls are fake. I just said that the people you call act odd-- not like I would expect.
Post a Comment
<< Home