9/11-What witnesses really saw

reply to post by pmexplorer


That's only the accounts of planes-most of which specifically saw large, commercial 767s. I haven't read through all of the sources yet, but most seem to be written/posted after September 11th-after everyone had saw the videos, over and over again. (?)

What about the people that saw small planes? You can't ignore those accounts. Just as we can't ignore the witnesses of a missile. As I said in the above post/s, there are conflicts, which cover a wide range of air vehicles, in the eye-witness testimonies.

www.911closeup.com...

Remember, missiles can look a lot like planes.

You seem to be set on the plane theory, just as I'm set on the missile theory. Both of which were seen and heard by witnesses.

reply to post by Niobis


So basically according to you every single eyewitness who was there on the day got it wrong.
The people who either saw a large sized commercial airliner fly past their eyes, or by their office, or over their heads etc etc were imagining it.
Or those who heard the very familiar and recognisable sound of a jet engine
simply imagined it?

I have posted a categorical list of eyewitnesses at ground zero and in the surrounds who give personal accounts of what they saw on heard on that unforgttable and tragic morning.

Can you provide us with one iota of proof that proves what you claim above and what you have been trying to ram down Crakeur's throat since the start of the thread?

How about showing us a video that shows a 'missile' approaching the WTC complex or even in the New York City airspace, seeing as this is your theory, surely you're not claiming that every single video camera and piece of recording/photographic equipment has been confiscated or that each and every video out there has been manipulated and 'corrected' etc.

For sure I have read the odd account and believe I might have seen some footage of those who might have thought it was indeed a missile which struck the towers but these are few and far between and I'm taking the occam's razor point of view here, in that given the circumstances and proximity of the attacks that it is quite understandable that people would be confused about what they had just seen or heard much like the 'cessna' claims which I explained in an earlier post.


[edit on 9-8-2008 by pmexplorer]

I got up early on 9/11/01 and set three VCRs to recording the three major networks and was watching Bush at Booker live on local TV
I heard early eyewitnesses tell reporters the first plane to hit the WTC
was:
"A bizjet" "an executive jet" "really loud" "loud sounds, "like a jet",etc.
I've looked at the impact pictures and they show a hole too small for a jumbo jet like a 757-767, but
A Lockheed Jetstar or it's military version the USAF C-140 fits the impact hole and the eyewitness descriptions to a "t"
Four engines that really whine, same wing angle as impact hole; Four engine layout in two clusters on tail fits impact hole also.

Occam's razor says the explanation that fits the evidence and requires the fewest leaps of logic is probably the correct one.

Operation Northwoods, appendix A or Project Mongoose is a plan for a faked attack on the US by the US, as a pretext to invade another nation.
Bush II, from his very first cabinet meeting had been asking for a reason to invade Iraq.
Looks to me like someone gave him that reason he wanted.
------With or without his knowledge/same result-----
Dusted off the old plans or a later revision and used Northwoods plan to paint airplanes like commercial aircraft, load them with explosives, remotely pilot and crash them.
(The two nations most accomplished at remote piloting are the USA and Israel btw)
Substitution at an AF aux airfield, fake drone taxi roll-off while real aircraft taxis in to land, is also in Northwoods plan,
to explain what happened to the passengers of the four airplanes that day.
All got landed at military airfield, then loaded onto one airplane which was shot down over PA.

Google for information about all terms in this post.
eg:
Bamford + Northwoods
Reason to invade + Bush's Sec Treasury
C-140 Lockheed Jetstar
Impact hole in WTC
shot down over PA witnesses


Was also on the phone with a friend who was recording CNN for me (retired sac-norad)
He said "Where's the air cover?" "There is non" I replied.
"Impossible!" he said.
His next words were "standown" then "inside job"


[edit on 10-8-2008 by himself]

reply to post by pmexplorer

So basically according to you every single eyewitness who was there on the day got it wrong.

That's just it. Not every single witness saw a large commercial plane. Many saw a small plane, some saw a missile, some didn't see anything except a huge fireball even though they were staring at the towers. The same applies for sounds. Some heard large plane engines, some heard a loud 'whining' or 'screaming' sound, some heard silent engines, and some heard(including a news reporter) a missile.

Can you provide us with one iota of proof that proves what you claim above and what you have been trying to ram down Crakeur's throat since the start of the thread?

First, let me make it clear that I am in no way trying to ram anything down anyone's throat! Crakeur said he was there, and saw a plane hit the South Tower. But yet, he neglects to tell us what type or color. I have not once tried to cram my ideas down his throat. I'm simply...debating.

Now, yes I can provide some proof. However, as we all know the evidence was quickly removed from Ground Zero, so of course, it will not be irrefutable.

Yes, I do claim(and believe) that every video and photo that features a "plane" is fake. Here's just a few reasons why:

-There is not one video(featuring a plane) that doesn't have at least 3 major problems!
-"Live" videos, show black blobs with NO detail what-so-ever.
-The famous FOX "nose-out" video shows no plane before zoom, 5 seconds before impact.
-In the ABC "live" shot, the "plane" skips frames. Impossible!
-The Naudet Brother's video of the North Tower attack "plane" features an explosion as wide as the tower itself.
-In Michael Hezarkhani's video (along with a few other "amateur" videos), the "plane" seamlessly melts into the building. Again, that is impossible! Something of the planes' would fall away from the building.
-Comparing videos will show an impossible flight path contradiction.
-Comparing videos will show the "planes" are not the same color or model. Black and white are not the same, obviously.
-A lot of the videos are simply cropped rotations of the originals.
-In CNN's Park Foreman video, the "plane" changes shape in mid air. The "plane's" nose also get cut before impacting the building. I sense graphics.
-The "black-outs" and camera switching of the "live" views are suspect of a cover-up.
-Since 2001, FOX, NBC and BBC have deleted, manipulated, or "lost" videos.

A reporter from CNN was on the scene on 9/11. This is what he said:

"Jim I don't know know if we've confirmed that this was an aircraft or to be more specific-some people said they thought they saw a missile. I don't know how people could differentiate, but we might keep open the possibility that this was a missile attack on these buildings."

Don Dahler from ABC said this about the North Tower attack:

"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 then later, he says this about the South Tower attack:

Anchor: That looks like a second plane has just hit...
Dahler: I didn't see a plane go in. That--that just exploded.

Here's some other accounts that describe everything but large commercial planes.

Planes do not make loud sonic booms when they explode. There are many witnesses who heard sonic booms. (Refer to link above.)

Missile echoes can be heard from both attacks.
North Tower:
www.youtube.com...
South Tower:
www.youtube.com...

As for the missile caught on tape, we can't have the original because NBC covered it up with a black blob. I have not been able to find the original video by itself, but you can see it here.

I know this is sort of off topic, but since my above post was long, I was not able to fit this in.

I just want to recommend you, pmexplorer, to watch the "911 Taboo" series(4 parts). It includes some great points about how and why a plane cannot melt into a building as we see in so many 9/11 "amateur" videos.

Here's part one:
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 10-8-2008 by Niobis]

[quote
I just want to recommend you, pmexplorer, to watch the "911 Taboo" series(4 parts). It includes some great points about how and why a plane cannot melt into a building as we see in so many 9/11 "amateur" videos.


Seem to have problem with basic comprehension - a plane does not
"melt" into a building. It knocks a hole in the side by kinetic energy
As in previous posts a modern airliner at sufficent speed is a battering
ram. In 1945 a B25 crashed into Empire State Building - it did not
"melt" into the building it smashed a hole in side. A B25 weighs less
than 1/10 of 767 airliner, travelling at 1/3 the speed left this hole in
Empire State exterior which is solid limestone.


]

Exterior of WTC is lattice of steel section bolted togather

reply to post by solo1


You're right, witnesses to traumatic events can be confused, that's why you try and get more than one witness, to weed out that element of confusion. But, any and all investigations start with witnesses, except in 9/11. Witness statements from 9/11, both at the WTC, Pentagon, & Shanksville sites have been largely ignored. Hell, you even have people who weren't witnesses to the events telling witnesses they didn't see what they saw.

It's the same with UFO's and other phenomena, where witnesses are actually told that their eyes played tricks on them, and they didn't actually see what they thought. It was swamp gas, or light reflecting off migrating birds, but not what you thought it was. They sew doubt into your mind, so you don't even believe and trust yourself, and that's wrong.

These people's witness statements should be fully investigated and explored, not ignored and derided.

Originally posted by thedman
A B25 weighs lessthan 1/10 of 767 airliner, travelling at 1/3 the speed left this hole in Empire State exterior which is solid limestone.

Also it did not do any damage to any of the steel beams even though high octane gas burns hotter then jet fuel.



[edit on 10-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Also it did not do any damage to any of the steel beams even though high octane gas burns hotter then jet fuel.

So, a plane a fraction of the size of a 767, with a even smaller percent of fuel on board, flying 1/3rd the speed, didnt do as much significant damage? And thats a suprise?

reply to post by thedman


Let me explain it this way(as Dr. Jeff King has): take a parked 767 and then slam a steel wall into it at 500mph. What will be the result?

It certainly would not melt through the wall. Instead, we would most likely see a crumpled plane.

In the videos showing a "plane" being completely consumed by the building-the wings, the tail-the entire "plane" doesn't react to the 110-story building at all. This defies all three laws of motion. At the very least the tail of the plane would have fallen to the ground. But instead, the "plane" doesn't even slow down after initial impact. Again, that defies the laws of motion.

All you have to do is watch the "amateur" videos in slow motion to realize they are fake.

Let me try to get back on topic though, since this is about witnesses. Take a look at the video below. This guy was on the 9/11 Commission! Listen to what he says about the Pentagon attack. Kind of blows all the witnesses of a 757 out of the water, no?

www.youtube.com...

Notice his eyes after he realizes the HUGE mistake he made.

[edit on 10-8-2008 by Niobis]

It certainly would not melt through the wall. Instead, we would most likely see a crumpled plane.

So we are supposed to see a "Wiley Coyote" where plane hits cliff and
crumpled plane (with dazzed coyote) hits ground.

What part of BOLTED TOGATHER STEEL LATTICE" do you not understand?
IT IS NOT SOLID! Plane striking the structure will shear the bolts holding
the sections togather. Plane will smash hole in the exterior structure.
As I have stated before a modern airliner contains many heavy high
strength structural components which when propelled with sufficent
velocity will knock hole into almost anything short of a reinforced bunker.
WTC was designed to be as light as possible with lattice work of thin steel
panels as exterior wall.

Originally posted by Niobis
In the videos showing a "plane" being completely consumed by the building-the wings, the tail-the entire "plane" doesn't react to the 110-story building at all. This defies all three laws of motion. At the very least the tail of the plane would have fallen to the ground. But instead, the "plane" doesn't even slow down after initial impact. Again, that defies the laws of motion.

You might want to check that second law of motion again. You do realize that a 100+ tons of "material" (regardless of aluminum, steel, bad airline food, etc) is hitting that wall at 500+ mph. That is a LOT of energy being released.

Unless there has been some miracle in building construction materials, I find it hard to believe that the outer structure would be able to absorb the energy output of 100+ tons moving at 500+ mph.

Originally posted by gavron
You might want to check that second law of motion again. You do realize that a 100+ tons of "material" (regardless of aluminum, steel, bad airline food, etc) is hitting that wall at 500+ mph. That is a LOT of energy being released.

But as most reports show the plane did not do much damage to the buildings becasue the planes are built of a lot weaker material then the building.

www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage.

reply to thedman and gavron

I understand steel lattice perfectly clear, and I'm not saying the plane wouldn't knock a hole in the side of the building at all, because it most certainly would. The problem is that not one piece of the "plane" falls to the ground. Like I said, at the very, very least the tail of the plane would fall away from the building.

Third law of motion:
"Whenever a particle [A] exerts a force on another particle [B], [B] simultaneously exerts a force on [A] with the same magnitude in the opposite direction."

We see nothing of that effect in the videos of "Flight 175" crashing into the South Tower. The entire "plane" is consumed by the building.

I've always liked the saying: "The only people that believe all the Flight 175 videos are real, are the people that haven't looked at them properly."

reply to post by Niobis


Thank you for the video, and while it was indeed interesting, thedman's
reply to your comment above is also a fact which must be taken into consideration. I have tried to research these 'no plane' theories with an open mind but I want to draw your attention to this rather interesting video
below which I found on youtube which goes a long way towards debunking
the 'nose out' element of the theory, what I like about this particular video is that both sides are represented and there is a civil and intelligent debate, if only the 9/11 related matters on ATS thrreads could all be discussed in such a manner it would be terrific, but anyway take a look:





[edit on 10-8-2008 by pmexplorer]

[edit on 10-8-2008 by pmexplorer]

reply to post by pmexplorer


Great find! I never noticed the "plane" doesn't exit when it "should" have(assuming constant velocity, as mentioned). However that does not conclusively prove it is not the nose of the composite plane.

What proves to me that it is in fact one of the huge mistakes(and there were many, including "witnesses"-Theresa Renault comes to mind) made on 9/11 is the fact that FOX attempted the "black-out" at that precise moment, and the fact that FOX deleted that shot from their archives and replaced it with video from FOX5, but used the same audio track from FOX11. Cover-up?

I'm not sure which comment of thedman's you are referring to.

[edit on 11-8-2008 by Niobis]

reply to post by Niobis

Originally posted by thedman


Seem to have problem with basic comprehension - a plane does not
"melt" into a building. It knocks a hole in the side by kinetic energy
As in previous posts a modern airliner at sufficent speed is a battering
ram. In 1945 a B25 crashed into Empire State Building - it did not
"melt" into the building it smashed a hole in side. A B25 weighs less
than 1/10 of 767 airliner, travelling at 1/3 the speed left this hole in
Empire State exterior which is solid limestone.


]

Exterior of WTC is lattice of steel section bolted togather

That comment mate ^

reply to post by pmexplorer


Oh yes, right.

But as he also said, "it did not "melt" into the building it smashed a hole in side." Much different from what we see in "amateur" videos of 9/11. Actually, there's a lot of things about that crash we didn't see on 9/11.

The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.

Allegedly the flames from Flight 11 shot down to the lobby, over 90 stories. In the Naudet Brother's film we seen the lobby windows shattered and panels that had been blown off the walls.

One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street.

Something we didn't see with either Flight 11 or 175. The engine from a 737 was found under some scaffolding.

Some debris from the crash fell to the streets below, sending pedestrians scurrying for cover, but most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor. Still, a bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building.

Probably the most important aspect missing, we didn't see any debris from the plane falling to the street. None on the impact side, where we should see it the most. We did see glass and steel being ejected from all sides of the building, but no engines or landing gears. On a side note, we do see the remaining piece of a missile being trailed by smoke existing the South Tower in almost all videos and many pictures.

history1900s.about.com...

By the way, I realize a 767 is much larger, faster and carries more fuel than a B-25-just in case someone tries to point that out, again.

Originally posted by Niobis
On a side note, we do see the remaining piece of a missile being trailed by smoke existing the South Tower in almost all videos and many pictures.

In all fairness Niobis that is pure speculation on your part.

You see a projectile exit the building and you are assuming (based on your
general theory that a missile and not a plane struck the building) that this
is part of the missile.
Given the size of the explosion how did this part of the missile remain intact?
Can you show me some other example of missiles
where they strike the target and break up on impact or carry on and parts
can be seen following through and out the other side of the intended impact target?

There seems to be a lot of conflicting information out there, you can find expert analysis from engineers which state that the plane would have simply crumpled on impact as the jet is made up of mostly aluminium (apart from the engines) and others who say that given the plane's velocity that it is easy to understand why it proceeded to cut through the tower and out the other side.

Sometimes even simple facts are hard to ascertain and this is why I still remain open-minded on all aspects of 9/11.

Almost seven years on and even taking ATS as an example here we all are still asking the same questions, examining the same theories and trying to make sense of it all.

[edit on 11-8-2008 by pmexplorer]

reply to post by pmexplorer


Yes, you're right. I'm speculating about the projectile, but let's use common sense and ask ourselves: what part of a plane could that be? It certainly isn't big enough to be an engine or landing gear.




I have not been able to find the examples you requested because in the majority of missile test videos they are shot towards the ground. While searching, I came across some other evidence about missiles and the WTC complex, but that's for another thread. Thank you, as I will looking into those more. The best I can do right now is the information and video below. I will continue searching and if or when I come across one I will be sure to post.

The only reason I am posting the following information on missiles is to show how very similar the JASSM looks like a plane. It is substantially smaller, but I can see how some could mistake it as a plane. Of course, I'm speculating(again) that a JASSM or something similar was used.

But as Karim Arraki (witness to both attacks) said, "Yeah, going into the building, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something--I don't know, it's like they work with the motors--I never saw a plane like that before! Yeah!"

He also said both planes were small and the same.

Mr. Arraki's full eye-witness account be found here.

Cruise missiles resemble airplanes. They have wings and an engine, but they are built somewhat differently to save money.

A small jet engine powers a cruise missile, typically at speeds of more than 800 km/h (500 mph).

A cruise missile has a sharp nose and steel casing so that it can penetrate concrete bunkers.

encarta.msn.com...




Here's a video of the JASSM in action.

In this video starting at 4:00 does anything look familiar? 9/11 Park Foreman video, anyone?

Again, thanks for the challenge.