Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"

wrote:
Before the official story of Islamic hijackers was fed to the press,
witnesses on the day in New York describe what they saw on 9/11:

"That was no American Airlines jet"

"It was a military plane"

"It was definitely no airliner"

Watch:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oVH5jm06pJY


Hmmmm, why would people on the ground at the time of the crashes say;

"That was no American Airlines jet"

Because some k00k remastered the video, the aicraft was definately a
Boeing 757.

On Sep 13, 6:32 pm, Jim34 wrote:
On Sep 13, 8:14 pm, wrote:

I also have questions about how the explosives for the controlled
demolition were placed without tens of thousands of office workers knowing
that it was being done, but that can wait for another day.

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/3...tshaftsut3.jpg

Mechanical Engineer explains how demolitions charges were place on the
welded joints on the WTC beams that ran up the center of the towers.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...66025292753615


Whooppe deee doo! A Scottish mechanical engineer, of totally unknown
qualifications and expertise claims explosives brought down the WTC.
Is he an expert in forensic engineering analysis to determining causes
of failure? How many investigations has he been involved in? My
guess, NONE. Did he actually see or test any of the steel or building
material that he's giving opinions on? On the other hand, we have
dozens of credible engineers who spent their careers doing forensic
failure analysis and they actually examined the material remains of
the WTC as well as all the other evidence. They say the collapse is
consistent with the damage inflicted by airplanes loaded with jet fuel
and the ensuing fire. Now, who should we believe? This guy or a
panel of real experts that have an explanation that not only makes
sense, but is consistent with the planes that flew into the
buildings? I'm an electrical engineer. If I say electrons only move
uphill, does that make it so?


There was a show debunking conspiracy crap like this on TV recently.
They had a retired US Air Force General who claims he's an explosive
expert, spent his career in the AF on explosives, etc. He was
running around with some other conspiracy kooks claiming McVeigh could
not have brought down the OKC Federal Bldg, because the 1000lb of
explosives planted 15 ft from the support columns could not have
destroyed them. He made his case that his "expert" calculations
showed that only 500lbs of force was generated at the columns, not the
5500lbs estimated by the expert panel that did the formal
investigation. Now, I'm no explosives expert, but given the Amfuel is
routinely used to blow solid rock apart for mining, it seems
reasonable that the truck bomb could easily have taken out the 3 front
building columns. And 500 vs 5000 in a whole order of magnitude
difference. Anyone who's off by that amount clearly isn't an expert
in the field. Someone is dead wrong.

So the show got a company to build the identical concrete columns, get
a duplicate junk truck, fill it with the same explosives, put it in
the exact 15ft location and set it off in the desert. The
result? Over 5600lbs of force. Exactly what the official
investigation concluded. Another asshole "expert" debunked. And
what does the General say? Does he admit he was totally wrong and
the official investigation correct in regard to the explosive power?
No, he says "You can rationalize anything you want....."

Yes, indeed you can.

wrote:
On Sep 13, 5:05 pm, wrote:
Supposedly hijackers turned off transponders making them invisible to
ATC. There is more to the story.

Yes, there is more to the story if you cared to check facts BEFORE
trying to start more nonsense based on misinformation. Yes, the
hijackers turned off the transponders. But no, that doesn't make the
aircraft invisible to ATC radar. The transponder only provides a
better radar return signal and info from the plane on it's altitude,
airspeed, heading, etc. ATC still had radar images of the planes.
They've even been shown occasionally on TV. A 757 is no more
invisible to radar than a B-52. Wasn't that the whole point of the
billions spent on new stealth military aircraft?

The transponders main function is to provide a data block for ATC as
trader4 says. Stealth aircraft will mount radar reflectors so they can
be seen while on training flights in the USA

On Sep 13, 7:13 pm, Not Disclosed wrote:
wrote:
Before the official story of Islamic hijackers was fed to the press,
witnesses on the day in New York describe what they saw on 9/11:

"That was no American Airlines jet"

"It was a military plane"

"It was definitely no airliner"

Watch:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oVH5jm06pJY

Hmmmm, why would people on the ground at the time of the crashes say;

"That was no American Airlines jet"

Because some k00k remastered the video, the aicraft was definately a
Boeing 757.


If you think about it, perhaps the stupidest thing about this alleged
video, is people supposidly running around right as the planes are
hitting the WTC towers saying "That was no American Airlines jet"
At that point in time, as it was happening, no one had said it was an
American Airlines jet, a United jet, a commericial jet or anything
else. People on the street would not know the airlines involved
until much later.

SGT. Major wrote:
wrote

Oh, and then what about this fellow Bin Laden and his cohorts
releasing videos where they take credit for 911? Is he part of the
conspiracy too? LOL

Yeah, like the US government would ever have Bin Laden in bed with them.

Didn't he have some connection to receive support from the CIA to fight
the Soviets in Afghanistan?

Jeff

Jonathan wrote:
Paul Heslop wrote:
wrote:
Before the official story of Islamic hijackers was fed to the press,
witnesses on the day in New York describe what they saw on 9/11:

"That was no American Airlines jet"

"It was a military plane"

"It was definitely no airliner"
sod off you nutter

Wahahaha........You sure are one stupid one. This is all you have? 12 Arabs
that never flew a jumbo jet learned from a video game and this is what you
think is the "truth". Wahhahaha.....What a loon...........


Flying a airliner isn't really all that hard, yes you can learn that
with Microsoft Flight Sim. The hard part is take-off, flight planning
and landing. As there were actual flight crews to do the first part, the
crashing part was easy...

On Sep 13, 7:59 pm, "SGT. Major" wrote:
"Jeff McCann" wrote

SGT. Major wrote:
wrote

Oh, and then what about this fellow Bin Laden and his cohorts
releasing videos where they take credit for 911? Is he part of the
conspiracy too? LOL

Yeah, like the US government would ever have Bin Laden in bed with them.

Didn't he have some connection to receive support from the CIA to fight
the Soviets in Afghanistan?

Jeff

Support? The US trained him.

It's sad when people like trader4, believe their government is lilly white.
And, laugh about Bin Laden being part of a government conspiracy.

It just makes you want to slap their silly ass into next week.


I never said any govt was lilly white. What I did say is that those
that are manufacturing conspiracy theories about 911 are a bunch of
kooks. They hang their hat on the any little shred of inconsistent
data that they don't believe fits, or some random testimony of one
witness, while ignoring the mountain of evidence as to what really
happened. A mountain of evidence that was looked at by forensic
investigators and that fits perfectly with the scenario as laid
out. As someone else has requested, I'd like to hear the whole
story of exactly what the conspiracy nuts think happened that day and
how it was pulled off. Let's start with the excellent question
already asked, which is if some planes other than the American and
United flights were responsible as alleged in this thread, then what
happened to the flight crews and passengers? What was all that 757
wreckage that was recovered by 911 workers in the months after the
crash? Did all the firefighters, truck drivers, forensic
investigators, FBI, and God knows who else not know wreckage from a
commercial AA jet? Hmmm?

I'd also like to see your evidence for the fact that the US
specifically trained Bin Laden. The US did supply support to the
Mujahideen in Afghanistan to drive the Soviets out. And Bin Laden
was there and supporting that effort as well. But I'd like to see
where the US trained him. Show us your credible source please.


Oh, wait, here, from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
However, Peter Bergen, a CNN journalist and adjunct professor who is
known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin
Laden in 1997, rejected Cook's notion, stating on August 15, 2006, the
following:

that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden-is simply a folk
myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things
that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on.
They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And
they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-
American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real
story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was
until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.[38]

Pakistani Brigadier Mohammad Yousaf, who ran ISI's Afghan operation
between 1983 and 1987, emphasizes that the CIA funded and supported
the mujahideen indirectly:

It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their
point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call
the tune. The CIA supported the mujahideen by spending the taxpayers'
money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms,
ammunition, and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch
that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan's
policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of
funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever
trained or had direct contact with the mujahideen, and no American
official ever went inside Afghanistan.[39]

Other sources also dispute the notion that the CIA had any contact
with non-Afghan mujahideen.[40



So, I suppose you think Wikipedia, CNN, Pakistan, etc is part of a big
conspiracy too? Or are you just an American bashing skunk who likes
to lie and support terrorists who kill women and children?

wrote:

Before the official story of Islamic hijackers was fed to the press,
witnesses on the day in New York describe what they saw on 9/11:

"That was no American Airlines jet"

"It was a military plane"

"It was definitely no airliner"

Watch:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oVH5jm06pJY

People on the ground had no better view of the air planes than people
with cameras on the ground:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2lOcEOsmAtA

On Sep 13, 11:56 am, wrote:
Before the official story of Islamic hijackers was fed to the press,
witnesses on the day in New York describe what they saw on 9/11:

"That was no American Airlines jet"

"It was a military plane"

"It was definitely no airliner"

Watch:http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oVH5jm06pJY

With the multiple plays of the live video shot _showing_ the planes
hitting the towers, idiots still try to pull that worn out, debunked,
idiotic, crazy horse****. Those videos clearly show planes well
enough for identification as to type if not specific models.

Harry K

wrote:
In misc.survivalism wrote:
Before the official story of Islamic hijackers was fed to the press,
witnesses on the day in New York describe what they saw on 9/11:

"That was no American Airlines jet"

If what you suspect is true, then where did the AA planes end up? Are the
passengers being kept in prisons? Were the planes dismantled in secret
hangars? What happened to the guys in airport towers who were monitoring
all the flights? How were they silenced when the AA planes were diverted
to secret landing sites?

[snip]


First I'd like to know what happened to the commercial jetliners and their
passengers, and how the air traffic controllers were silenced.


At Area 51 of course. Next to the moon landing stage.

--

Len