9/11-What witnesses really saw

I am always hearing people telling that witnesses on 9/11 in New York , definitely saw a boeing 767 hit the tower.

But the reports from the eyewitnesses are very different , most report a small almost soundless aircraft striking the tower.



I dont know why the reports from these witnesses continue to be ignored , but one thing is certain if there was a hologram used in that morning , everyone would have seen and reported a 767 , that way Mr.Lear there is no way that a hologram was used in that morning to fool people.


[edit on 4-8-2008 by dracodie]

Nice collection. I never really believed in the whole hologram theory, but this made me wanna research a little on it.

What really shocked me was the reporter (Near the end) who said he did not see a plane at all.

Starred and flagged.



[edit on 4-8-2008 by Striker122]

no one of importance is ever going to come forward with the truth because they've gained too much from it already. they'll ignore the evidence and turn a cold shoulder even when it stares them in the face. i certainly think the news anchors were very important pawns in this plot to place a 747 as the cause of the collapses. the crash in Pa blows my mind when they seemed to find "terrorists" passports and drivers lincences when everything else was vaporised and barely any plane wreckage was recovered. this makes the american people look like schoolchildren when we can't even stand up in the face of these people and interogate them. ofcourse their all untouchable and we know them as this countrys leader so we certainly wouldn't go against them. this whole terrorist thing is a lie, there would have been multiple bombings since because cacaine continues to find its way into our borders, why wouldn't the neccisary ingredients to c4 make it's way here. those terrorist must have the iq of a monkey to not gain entrance into our borders since 911.

I can get you plenty of witnesses who saw either the first, the second or both planes hit. some of them were rather close, some farther away. I know people who were facing the buildings, staring from their offices a block away when the second plane it. My wife was on the phone with a coworker who was on the street when the first plane flew overhead. My wife heard the plane over the phone line and asked what the hell that was. Her coworker said "a plane. I've never seen one that low before." I saw the second plane hit.

All these folks who claim it wasn't planes or it wasn't large, passenger planes, come to NYC and ask around. There were plenty of witnesses who saw it and, hopefully, they won't take offense to the accusation that they didn't see the tragedy as it unfolded.

Thats the problem ,amongst the ruins were the only evidence that could of verified what happened.
Eye witnesses to any traumatic event can be confused ,dazed and see things that are or not there.
the evidence that was in the ruins,was quickly hobbled on to trucks carried away , never seen again .
What remained the pulverized dust was tell tale evidence ,to this day is not talked about ,rarely heard of. How quickly the subject changes when it is mentioned about.

I do not think Americans are ready to move on from the safety of denial. Perhaps like the JFK murder,in 50 years a new generation will be more opened minded , not fear the real truth, the whole truth .Perahps nothing but the truth will be demanded by them.

The Mind is a fragile thing ,even the most hardened fighter breaks down into
Denial when confronted with the evidence .All sense of logic and common sense is lost. what remains is an ugly display of Denial that defies all reason .

reply to post by Crakeur


Then why dont those people make a video interview or make a forum or something like that , were they say by there words that they really saw a 767 , that would put a end to the "what really did hit the towers" conspiracy.

From where I worked at oil refinery in Linden, NJ had several dozen
of my coworkers witness the second plane from upper floors of our
buildings. Some of the workers in the plant complex were watching
from the catwalks of the cracking units. My boss came downstairs to
where we were about 9:10 told us what had seen - we told him that
was pretty sick making joke like that. Told us to go upstairs and
look - spent next 45 minutes watching towers burn until South Tower
collapsed...

Many of my friends were too freaked out to talk about it. You seem to
think its like talking about a ball game watching 3000 peole die and
two of the largest buildings collapse into rubble....

reply to post by dracodie



no it wouldn't. I've been told I didn't see the second plane hit. Those of you that want to believe some other story won't take the thousands of eyewitness accounts as being accurate. no, wait, you haven't. they're out there. watch the news clips from that day. plenty of folks giving their version of what they saw

reply to post by Crakeur


Where's all the videos to these planes you speak of? I have not seen one video that featured a plane that does not have major problems.

You say you saw the second strike, and I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I have one question: What color was the "plane"?

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Niobis]

Originally posted by Niobis
reply to post by Crakeur

 

Where's all the videos to these planes you speak of? I have not seen one video that featured a plane that does not have major problems.

You say you saw the second strike, and I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I have one question: What color was the "plane"?

[edit on 4-8-2008 by Niobis]

What "major problems" does the above have then?








[edit on 4-8-2008 by pmexplorer]

Originally posted by pmexplorer

What "major problems" does the above have then?

Well, let's see.

-There's 37 story building missing.
-The "plane" has steel slicing wings.
-The "plane" melts into the building with no explosion at point of impact. There's not even any debris at point of impact.
-The "plane" grows an extra piece before it reaches the tower.
-Fake audio track.
-Did I mention a 37 story building is missing? Where the hell did that go? I guess it decided it was gonna take a walk like the Verrazzano Bridge.
www.youtube.com...

It's just too obvious the "plane" is rendered computer graphics...too obvious.
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Niobis
What is the 37 story bldg. that you refer to? Where is it or should it be?

Originally posted by Niobis

Originally posted by pmexplorer

What "major problems" does the above have then?

Well, let's see.

-There's 37 story building missing.
-The "plane" has steel slicing wings.
-The "plane" melts into the building with no explosion at point of impact. There's not even any debris at point of impact.
-The "plane" grows an extra piece before it reaches the tower.
-Fake audio track.
-Did I mention a 37 story building is missing? Where the hell did that go? I guess it decided it was gonna take a walk like the Verrazzano Bridge.
www.youtube.com...

It's just too obvious the "plane" is rendered computer graphics...too obvious.
www.youtube.com...

I really shouldn't get into these wind up posts but I thought someone else would clear this up for you.

anyways I'll bite...


I think you've been spending too much time on the darkside of youtube.

The plane has 'steel slicing wings'.

It's a plane flying at a couple of hundred miles an hour, what do you expect it to do, bounce out?

What do you mean no explosion on point of impact?
The explosions happen hundredths of seconds after the plane crashes into the building and the fuel goes up, this is quite clear to see.

"Fake audio track" .... could you possibly elaborate on that as I have no idea what you mean by this.

I would suppose considering the plane's momentum that the majority of the debris was propelled out of the far side of the tower as you can see.


Where exactly would you place this much smaller building that is supposedly missing in the video I posted?

if it's so obvious it was computer graphics, explain the dozens and dozens of shots of the planes from various angles, the many many eyewitnesses who both heard and saw the plane strike the building.

What computer rendered graphics could explode in such a manner as to leave a 757 shaped cutout in the face of the building?



[edit on 5-8-2008 by pmexplorer]

Originally posted by pmexplorer

The plane has 'steel slicing wings'.

It's a plane flying at a couple of hundred miles an hour, what do you expect it to do, bounce out?

No, it would be expected the plane crumples. As I've mentioned in some other posts about this, listen to what Mike Walter from USA Today said about his eye-witness of the "plane" that hit the Pentagon.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vxc50xAbk

If that was a real plane, it would not melt into the building.

Originally posted by pmexplorer
What do you mean no explosion on point of impact?
The explosions happen hundredths of seconds after the plane crashes into the building and the fuel goes up, this is quite clear to see.

There is no explosion until the "plane" is 3/4 of the way inside. Watch the video at 1/2 or 1/4 speed and you'll see. I wouldn't recommend the video you posted from YouTube because the quality has been severely decreased because of compression. There's too many artifacts to determine when the explosion starts.

Originally posted by pmexplorer
"Fake audio track" .... could you possibly elaborate on that as I have no idea what you mean by this.

Listen carefully to the fake explosion sound. For one thing, it's delayed by about 2 seconds or more. Also, the background audience is suspicious.

Originally posted by pmexplorer
I would suppose considering the plane's momentum that the majority of the debris was propelled out of the far side of the tower as you can see.

Did you notice the missile smoke trail that existed the building? It can clearly be seen in that video, along with many photos of the South Tower attack.

Originally posted by pmexplorer
Where exactly would you place this much smaller building that is supposedly missing in the video I posted?

19 Rector Street. It's a 37 story black building. You can't miss it. Well, you could if you believe the above video to be a real plane crash.

Originally posted by pmexplorer
if it's so obvious it was computer graphics, explain the dozens and dozens of shots of the planes from various angles, the many many eyewitnesses who both heard and saw the plane strike the building.

As I said earlier, I have yet to see one video of the South Tower attack, that features a plane, that doesn't have major problems. That includes all the "live" videos and the "amateur" videos. Planes are different colors-one is black, one is white, one is blue and white. You can't have the same plane with different paint jobs. Flight paths are inconsistent. You also can't have the same plane traveling two different paths. In one video, we see the "plane" coming straight in, yet in another, it takes a steep decline before hitting the tower.

The witnesses of a plane crashing into the South Tower is complicated, I'm sure you would agree. The initial reports on the news were erratic. Some saw a 757, DC9 or 767, some saw a small two engine plane, some saw a missile, some don't see anything except a huge explosion. Hell, even Don Dahler from CBS said the only way he could describe the sound was a missile.

"...And at about 10--I would say 10 minutes ago, 15 minutes ago, there was a loud sound that I can only describe it--it sounded like a missile, not an airplane...And it was definitely not the sound of a prop plane or anything like that..."

Continued from above.

Originally posted by pmexplorer
What computer rendered graphics could explode in such a manner as to leave a 757 shaped cutout in the face of the building?

I'm not exactly sure how the above video was created, but the best speculation is that it was made using Microsoft's Flight Simulator. Flight Simulator has the same type of glitches in the earlier versions. If you've ever played it, you'd find that when you drive a plane into a building, it will 'melt' into the building exactly the way we see in the above video. Also, in 2001, Microsoft's Visual Earth was missing 19 Rector Street.

As for the 757 shaped cutout, take a close look at the Naudet film of the North Tower attack. It can clearly be seen how the wing shaped holes were created with the use of explosives.

[edit on 5-8-2008 by Niobis]

No, it would be expected the plane crumples. As I've mentioned in some other posts about this, listen to what Mike Walter from USA Today said about his eye-witness of the "plane" that hit the Pentagon.

So you expect the plane to crumple like a crushed beer can? Under
the skin there are heavy duty components built of high strength metal
and alloys - jet engines, wing ribs and spars, jet engines, keel beam

When propelled at high speed will smash through the exterior skin
of the building. In 1945 a B25 punched a hole in side of Empire State
Building. One motor sailed all way through building and landed on roof
of adjacent building.




The Empire State exterior wall is quarried limstone 8 inches thick. A B25
weighs less than 1/10 of a 767 travelling at at 1/3 the speed - only
1/100 the energy of the 767 impact.

Exterior wall of WTC was lattice of thin gauge steel bolted together.

Even a tornado whose winds max out at 300 mph will drive straw into a
tree or pieces of wood into a concrete wall - 767 hit at almost twice the
speed.

Listen carefully to the fake explosion sound. For one thing, it's delayed by about 2 seconds or more. Also, the background audience is suspicious.

You must have failed physics? Sound travels at 1100 ft/sec - depending
on how far microphone is from source will take several seconds
to arrive.

Why no explosion at entry hole? Again physics - plane hitting at 500 mph
will travel 750 ft/sec. Debris and fuel cloud will travel at same speed
as plane until stopped by some other object.

(Newtons Law of Motion)

Thats why see debris and fireball exiting other side of building

Originally posted by thedman

So you expect the plane to crumple like a crushed beer can?

No, not like an aluminum can. More or less like a car. We've all seen the car crash tests in which the rear end of the car crumples. Of course, a plane travels at much faster speeds, but the size and weight would be balanced and therefore similar to a high speed car crash. No 'melting' into the building. The nose, fuselage and wings would be annihilated upon impact. We could expect the engines to go inside, but not the entire plane as we see in the above video.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by thedman
You must have failed physics? Sound travels at 1100 ft/sec - depending
on how far microphone is from source will take several seconds
to arrive.

Why no explosion at entry hole? Again physics - plane hitting at 500 mph
will travel 750 ft/sec. Debris and fuel cloud will travel at same speed
as plane until stopped by some other object.

(Newtons Law of Motion)

Thats why see debris and fireball exiting other side of building

I knew someone would say something about my comment on the delay. I suppose I walked into it by not explaining myself more. I know there would be a delay because sound travels slower, but it is delayed just a little too long. From the location, we would expect to start hearing the explosion about 1.3-1.5 seconds after the initial impact, and then the explosion would follow. Instead we hear nothing but a fake explosion sound about 4 seconds after the initial impact.

Originally posted by thedman
Thats why see debris and fireball exiting other side of building

Again, as I mentioned earlier, did you noticed the missile smoke trail that existed the building?



I expected these exact responses. You only commented on the easiest exploitable problems. Why no response to the missing building? In my opinion, that's all the proof needed to prove the video is fake. Buildings don't disappear or walk away by themselves. Or what about the "plane" growing an extra piece before it hit the building?

The deformation of the "plane" as it approaches the building can be seen clearly... Notice the "pod" that develops between the wings, and how the tail section appears to change shape and bulge as well.

thewebfairy.com...
thewebfairy.com...

reply to post by dracodie

Originally posted by dracodie
But the reports from the eyewitnesses are very different , most report a small almost soundless aircraft striking the tower.

There was a video posted on ATS within the past week that shows the second plane hitting. The MSNBC reporters are talking to a woman who heard and saw the first plane hit; they were discussing the "accident" when the second plane came into plain view and hit the second tower.

The testimony in this video recounted lound sounds, "like a jet", and a BIG plane. So I don't know where you are coming from. I'll try to dig out that thread.

why not planes , what difference did it make to whoever ochestrated this awful event, remote control planes, 3000 die or 3200, when there is that many deaths it just becomes numbers, RIP to all of the innocents who died that day