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

Jonathan wrote:
Al Dykes wrote:

Cutting charges go boom.

Cutting charges for big beams go BOOM

Nobody saw or heard BOOM immediatly preceeding the collapse of any
tower.

Al goes boom boom. You have no clue little Al. None what so whatever about

You are an irrational kook.

Seek help.

--
Ray Fischer

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:15:55 -0500, Ron Hunter 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


What a crock!
American Airlines is headquartered here, and you can bet the people here
KNOW you are nuts. Their friends were on those planes!
Stop spreading terrorist nonsense.

Don't ask me how I know, but I know damn well those were commercial
airliners.

The Bush haters have gone utterly nuts. The whole lot of this people
should be locked up in mental institutions. There's nothing they won't lie
about, and they're so delusional, they're a danger to themselves and to
society.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:56:08 -0700, aaaaaaaadftdfgdfgdfgdfgdgdf 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

Well, there you go. Some idiot bimbo who doesn't know her ass from a hole
in the ground says, on a video that surfaces 6 years later, that it was
not "American airlines" and it was a "military plane".

How stupid is that?! If it was military, then why not say "it's not a
United Airlines" or "it's not Japan Air Lines"? Damnit, these stupid Bush
haters, is there nothing they won't stoop to?

those were commercial airplanes. I just know, Don't bother asking me how I
know, but I'm damn sure. I know who bought them, and who owned them when
they were destroyed.

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:14:47 -0400, Jonathan wrote:

Rocinante wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:42:46 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

In misc.survivalism 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.

To believe this crap, you'd have to
believe in the most complex and bizarre conspiracy imaginable.

I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've
worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned.
And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of bored
busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. That work is done by
specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be needed for two
giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the work could have
been carried out in secret.

Setting up explosives for controlled demolition of two tall buildings
is even more complicated than most people realize.



You know this just HOW?









Miles of cables
need to be run across office space in order to pull the beams in the
right direction.

You are a real pro I see.

I am an engineer who worked with demo teams.


Also, those support beams have to be cut nearly all
the way through in order to help the bombs do their jobs. Again, the
bombs have to be planted in the right spots and some would be in
plain sight. They just can't be lobbed in hidden crawl spaces when
everyone goes home. You would also need to hide giant spools of
wiring that would be needed to wire all the bombs. Finally, bombs are
not stable. The intense heat caused by those "distracting" planes
hitting the towers would have exploded the bombs out of sequence
and/or destroyed the connecting wires.

You have no clue what-so-ever.

I see you cannot refute the truth. I just told you its raining outside and
took you outside to get wet, but you still don't believe that it's raining.
You would rather believe that someone is standing on the roof with a garden
hose.

The whole premise of this conspiracy theory is ridiculously absurd; our own
government secretly planned the mass murder of innocent citizens in order
to garner support for the Iraq war. Wouldn't it have been easier for the
government to plant some WMD's in Iraq?

Occam's Razor: research it and understand it.

--
Creativity is great, but plagiarism is faster!


9/16/2007 1:41:00 AM

On 15 Sep 2007 11:40:57 -0400, Al Dykes wrote:

In article hlSGi.737$6B2.374@trndny04, Kinon O'Cann wrote:
Well, this is BS, but I've always wondered about that crash into the
Pentagon. Look at this chronology, and see if they mention a jet crashing
into the Pentagon:

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/

And if a jet did hit the Pentagon, where's the wing damage? Seems like a
very narrow slice of damage for a jet with a 200' wingspan (guess).



Put anything said in that website in the context of all the eye
witnesses and phyical evidence. Especially that smoking hole in the
Pentagon with all the 757 wreckage and the body parts, as witnessed by
hundreds of first responders and who's DNA matches that of the family
members of the people booked to ride on the plane.

Details of engine parts found at Pentagon
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cy/q0265.shtml

Black boxes recovered and analyzed
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf

Info on the tapes
http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_6068.shtml

More eye witnesses same-day reporting
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...01/attack.html

Transcript of CNN broadcast of 1PM 9-11, eyewitness
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../11/bn.32.html

Perdue simulation of 757 impact
http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/....Pentagon.html

DNA matches with family members matches all but one of Pax on Flt77
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2006/9.11/index.html

Video of Phanton hitting wall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8



89 eyewitnesses. Put any of them or any other name you come up with
into this custom search ans see what they said. Everyone saw a plane
flying at the pentagon. nobody saw that plane fly over teh pentagon and
leave.

http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=01...%3Ahx2yxincxdu

Anderson Steve
Anlauf Deb & Jeff
Artman, Stuart ***
Banton, Ralph
Barbara
Battle, David
Bauer Gary
Baxter, John, Col.
Bease, Maurice
Bell Mickey
Benedetto Richard
Biggert Judy
Birdwell Brian
Boger Sean ****
Bouchoux Donald R.
Bowman John
Bradley, Pam
Braman Chris
Brennan, Donald
Bright Mark
Brooks, Chadwick
Brown Ervin
Bryceland, Frank
Campo, Omar
Candelario, Joseph
Carroll, Susan
Cissell James R.
Clem, Dennis
Cleveland Allen
Clodfelter, George
Close, Bernadette
Cook Scott P.
Cox, Richard (Arlington po)
Creed Dan
Damoose
Day Wayne T.
DeChiaro Steve
Defina
DiPaula Michael
Dobbs Mike
Donley, Daryl
Dougherty Jill
Dubill Bob
Dyson, John
Eberle Bobby Pilot
Eiden Steve
Elgas Penny
Elhallan, Aziz Pilot
Elliott Bruce
Evey Walker Lee
Faram Mark
Flyler Kim
Ford Ken
Fortunato Don
Foust, Barry (Arlington po)
Frost Stephen S.
Gaines Kat
Gaskins, Fred
Gerard, Steven
Gerson, Mike
Hagos Afework
Hahr, Matt
Harrington Joe
Hemphill Albert
Henson Jerry
Hernandez, Eugenio
Hovis Tom
Hudson, Ed
Hunt Bob
Hurst, Joe
Ingledue, Jim (VBFD)
James, Isabel
James, Michael
Jarvis Will
Johnson, Megan
Jones, Eric
Kaiser, Andrea
Kean Terrance
Keglovich, James
Kelly, Lesley
Khavkin D. S.
Kirk Mark Steven
Kizildrgli Aydan
Kopf, Peter
Krohn Charles H.
Krug, Ann
Lagasse William
Le Grand, La Verne
Leibner Lincoln
Leonard, Robert
Lyman, Mary
Marra David
Martinez Oscar
Mason, Don
McClain Tom
McClellan Kenneth
McCoy, Steve (eng. 101)
McCusker Elaine
McGraw Stephen
McNair Phil
Middleton William Sr.
Milburn Kirk
Mitchell Terry
Mitchell, Mitch
Mondul, Steve
Moody Sheila
Morin Terry
Mosley James
Munsey Christopher
Murphy Peter M.
Murray, Patty (Senator)
Narayanan Vin
Neri, Michael
O'Keefe John
Owens Mary Ann
Pak, Zinovy
Patterson Steve
Perkal Don
Perry, Scott
Peterson Christine
Petitt, Mark
Pfeilstucker Daniel C. Jr
Plaisted, Linda
Powell, Reginald
Probst Frank
Ragland Clyde
Ramey, Wanda
Regnery Alfred S.
Renzi Rick
Riskus, Steve
Robbins James S
Rodriguez Meseidy
Rosati Arthur
Roser, John F.
Royster, Joseph
Ryan James
Ryan, Darb (Vice Admir)
Sabre, Qawly
Schickler Rob
Scott Don
Seibert Tom
Sepulveda Noel
Shaeffer Kevin
Sheuerman Philip
Singleton Jack
Skarlet
Slater Mike
Smiley, Elizabeth
Smith, Dennis
Snaman, Steve
Snavel Dewey
Sorenson, Kristopher Leigh
Stanley, G.T.
Stephens Levi
Storage Tech. Employees
Storti, Steve
Stuart, Chris
Sucherman Joel
Sustern, Greta
Sutherland Jim
Tamillow Michael
Taylor, Shari
Terronez Tony
Thompson Carla
Thompson Phillip
Ticknor Henry (minister)
Timmerman Don "Tim" Pilot
Tinyk, Michael
Trapasso, Thomas
Turner Ron
Unidentified witness on video
Vaughan, Clyde (Brig. Gen)
Velasquez Jose
Vera, Michael
Wallace Alan
Wallace Terry
Walter Mike
Washington, Rodney
Wheelhouse Keith
Winslow Dave
Wright Don
Wyatt Ian
Wyatt, Ian
Yates John
Yeingst William
Zakheim Madelyn

The truthers proved this was incorrect with grainy, out of perspective
photos, videos and a couple of crazy witnesses. They don't accept facts
that debunk their theory.

--
Faith is daring the soul to go beyond what the eyes can see.


9/16/2007 1:52:00 AM

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:24:19 -0700, trader4 wrote:

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.

Exactly. Some really stupid 9/11 conspiracy wacko made the video well
after the fact and put that in, not realizing that if it really was a
military jet, no one would say "that's not an American Airline's Jet".

Dumb ass conspiracy wackos.

Rocinante wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:14:47 -0400, Jonathan wrote:


Rocinante wrote:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:42:46 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:


In misc.survivalism 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.

To believe this crap, you'd have to
believe in the most complex and bizarre conspiracy imaginable.

I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've
worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned.
And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of bored
busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. That work is done by
specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be needed for two
giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the work could have
been carried out in secret.

Setting up explosives for controlled demolition of two tall buildings
is even more complicated than most people realize.



You know this just HOW?




Its obvious , we know that buildings fall so neatly naturally ... its
only in controlled demolitions that things go sideways








Miles of cables

need to be run across office space in order to pull the beams in the
right direction.

You are a real pro I see.


I am an engineer who worked with demo teams.


Also, those support beams have to be cut nearly all

the way through in order to help the bombs do their jobs. Again, the
bombs have to be planted in the right spots and some would be in
plain sight. They just can't be lobbed in hidden crawl spaces when
everyone goes home. You would also need to hide giant spools of
wiring that would be needed to wire all the bombs. Finally, bombs are
not stable. The intense heat caused by those "distracting" planes
hitting the towers would have exploded the bombs out of sequence
and/or destroyed the connecting wires.

You have no clue what-so-ever.


I see you cannot refute the truth. I just told you its raining outside and
took you outside to get wet, but you still don't believe that it's raining.
You would rather believe that someone is standing on the roof with a garden
hose.

The whole premise of this conspiracy theory is ridiculously absurd; our own
government secretly planned the mass murder of innocent citizens in order
to garner support for the Iraq war. Wouldn't it have been easier for the
government to plant some WMD's in Iraq?

Occam's Razor: research it and understand it.

On Sep 15, 5:46 pm, Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:36:05 +0000 (UTC),

wrote:
In misc.survivalism Jonathan wrote:

The whole of 911 was "pretty far fetched" before it happened.

Is that some reason to accept poor evidence?

And besides, the scenarios were predicted and studied. Bush was warned.

Hell, Tom Clancy wrote about something very similar in a
book. There was nothing far-fetched about it. The people
in charge of airspace defense were caught off guard, but
there was no reason they should have been. They just
weren't paying attention to the all-too-obvious
possibilities. I mean, really, TWO fighters ready on the
ground in Massachusetts, to defend the entire northeast???


What enemy exactly did you expect to be defending against in 2001 that
required air force fighters to be ready on a few minutes notice to go
intercept? Canada? You have to make some reasonable decisions
about what the risks are and what resources it makes sense to use.
If the AF had hundreds of fighters sitting on the end of runways ready
to go on a moments notice, guys like you would be the first to say how
stupid that was. Plus, the hijackers could have just used planes
taking off from NYC airports, in which case they would have been at
the WTC in a few minutes.




It's just like Pearl Harbor, which also shouldn't have come
as such a surprise. The U.S. Navy had already run two
wargames showing the power of carrier attack. The British
had already sunk several Italian warships at Taranto using
torpedoes, and Taranto was also "too shallow" to allow
torpedo attack.

The typical defense establishment just isn't very good at
preparing for anything they haven't handled in the immediate
past. The "next time" will also be something they should
have seen coming, but didn't.

Why don't you tell us what that is, smart guy. It's easy to be a
Monday morning quarterback, isn't it?



Expecting them to is just
expecting too much of them. They don't think outside the
box. They don't even think inside the box, unless it's
their own box.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

BTW, account for the fact that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have taken
credit for it.

Why not take credit if they really did? Show me where you heard Bin Laden
say he was responsible. There are also reports that Iraq had WMDs and Saddam
was building nukes. Where are the WMDs? Why so many other lies? Why do you
believe just what you want and not just disbelieve anything that the Bush
team has to offer? They are the proven liars not Bin Laden. When the lies
stop then people can start to believe and not until then. Why are so many
so stupid? Saddam had nothing to do with 911 but how many people still think
he did? At first Bin Laden denied he was responsible and that is something
that I believe is true. Because they rejoice at the event does not mean they
were involved.

Show me the words that Bin Laden said that translate into any confession.
Do it now or go away a total loser.

Put up or shut up.-


Can you possibly be this out of touch with the news that you issue
such a dumb challenge that is easily demolished? Perhaps it's
because you spend more time watching cartoons and making up nonsense,
instead of keeping informed of even the most basic info before you
jump to bizarre conspiracy theories.

Here's your evidence that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda took credit for 911.
It's straight from Al Jazeera, which is certainly no friend of the USA
and has been the main channel for Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to make press
releases:


http://english.aljazeera.net/English...rchiveId=35762

NEWS GLOBALNEWS

Al-Qaeda video takes credit for 9/11

A new videotape aired on Aljazeera television has shown Osama bin
Laden and senior al-Qaeda members meeting some of the men who carried
out the attacks against the US on September 11, 2001.

The 90-minute video apparently shows bin Laden, the leader of al-
Qaeda, taking part in the planning and preparation of the attacks that
killed nearly 3,000 people.

The footage, first aired on Thursday, also shows Abu Hafsa al-Masri,
al-Qaeda's then military leader, and Ramzi bin al-Shaiba, co-ordinator
of the 9/11 attacks, meeting in al-Qaeda's training camps in Taliban
controlled Afghanistan.

The tape also says that a previous unknown Arab Islamist, Abu al-Turab
al-Urduni, supervised the training for the attacks.

The video said the preparation for the attacks included not only
flight training but also lessons in street-fighting and how to forge
official documents.

The video also showed two of the 19 Islamists who took part in the
attacks, Saudi nationals Hamza al-Ramdi and Wael el-Shemari.

The men said that their actions were inspired by an urge to avenge the
suffering of Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya.

Ramzi bin al-Shaiba was captured by the US in 2002. He is now
reportedly being held in Guantanamo Bay.

Parts of the tape show bin Laden - wearing a dark robe and white head
gear - strolling through an Afghan training camp, greeting dozens of
followers, some masked, some barefaced, many carrying automatic
weapons.

Aljazeera said that among those he greeted in the footage were several
of the 9/11 hijackers but their faces were not clear, and it was not
immediately known which ones were shown.

In one scene, bin Laden addresses the camera, calling on all Muslims
to support the hijackers.

"I ask you to pray for them and to ask God to make them successful,
aim their shots well, set their feet strong and strengthen their
hearts," bin Laden said.

The comments were apparently filmed before the attacks but never
before released.

The footage also shows scenes of training at the camp.



Or how about this from PBS, which also is no particular friend of the
current administration:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/..._10-29-04.html

October 29, 2004, 5:10pm EDT
BIN LADEN ADMITS 9/11 RESPONSIBILITY, WARNS OF MORE ATTACKS

A tape aired by Al-Jazeera television Friday showed al-Qaida leader
Osama bin Laden admitting for the first time that he orchestrated the
Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and saying the United States could face more.

It was the first footage of bin Laden to appear in more than a year
and came just days before voters head to the polls Tuesday after an
extremely tight president race.

In the 18-minute tape, bin Laden, who appeared to be sitting or
standing at a table against a neutral background, said: "Despite
entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you
and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still
there to repeat what happened."

Bin Laden said he thought of the method of attacking U.S. skyscrapers
when he saw Israeli aircraft bombing tower blocks in Lebanon in 1982.

"We decided to destroy towers in America," he said. "God knows that it
had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our
patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the
American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon,
this came to my mind."


Now that it's apparent that you are ignorant of even the most basic
facts about Al-Qaeda and 911, it's very obvious how well founded and
thought out the rest of your nonsense is. Are you now through giving
aid and comfort to our enemies who kill innocent women and children?
No, I'm sure you'll continue.

Anything else I can help you with today, Jonathan?

Harry K wrote:
On Sep 15, 2:11 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
Harry K wrote:
On Sep 15, 7:01 am, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Jonathan wrote:

snip

Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their
coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place
charges anywhere they wanted.

Has anyone come up with a credible scenario? I'd love to see it.

So you want someone to make up a story about how it could happen?
Some fantasy that you guys like to engage in? Where is the security
of such a building and who checks out each maintenance worker that
enters and leaves? Do you know for sure that no one could have
possibly entered at any time to do what needed to be done? There is
always a possibility that anything could happen and just because
there is no proof positive one way or the other than this means
nothing. Who would have believed that 911 could have occurred in
the first place? Reasonable suspicion is all that it needed to
create doubt and many people have plenty of that. To think that
everything is as it is told to you is the absolute truth is pretty
lame and to try to argue that way is just a loony and someone that
doubt what is fed to them.

snip

When you can come up with some way that hundreds of workers working
for months on end, stripping walls, making one huge mess, hauling
away tones of the debris that was made getting access to the
columns, cutting notches in beams, stringing miles of det cord,
without anyone noticing then the sane people here will listen.
Until then your disbeif is flat kookery.

The hundreds of men is probably too many but the crew would have
been big. The 'months on end' is accurate. It would take that
long to prepare a building the size of the WTCs for demo.

Watch a show on controlled demolions some time, the History channel
runs them occasionally. Here is a clue, just prior to detonation,
you can look clear through the building - that is how much stuff
has been removed.

But of course you will still somehow believe that all that is
possible without being noticed.

Harry K

Harry K

You are the one that says that is what is needed to get the job
done not me. Given enough time anything can be done and no
explanation need be given. How much time was needed? Do you think
this might have had to been planned over one weekend? Was every
floor occupied and was anyone expecting something to happen and was
everyone looking for something suspicious? How was it that 12
terrorists got by all the security needed to fly all the planes at
the same time into the most crowded city in the country? How did all
this come about without anyone even finding out? How was it that
even when Bush was told about it he just sat there on his stupid ass
and did nothing? This was the unbelievable part you fool. Not the
part about placing charges in a tall building. Why are you loons so
dumb to think otherwise? This whole 911 even happened and you obsess
about some simple thing that could have easily have occurred. Man
you are a stupid lot of asshats.

If before 911 someone was asked what they thought more likely to
occur. Some team of crack specialists blowing up a tower in NYC or
flying huge jumbo jets into sky scrappers what do you think would
have been the answer?

Why are you so lame?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You must have missed all the people saying that "until you can make a
believable explanation for how the charges were placed in an occupied
building, you have nothing but kookery going for you.

Clue 1. Even a small house cannot be prepared for demo in one
weekend.

I have stated this but you don't seem to be able to keep up. Who said it
had to be one weekend? Where do you get this BS from?


Clue 2. The WTC towers were occupied by thousands of workers and
maintenance staff 24/7. The maintenance staff alone would have had to
be deaf and blind not to have seen the activity or, even allowing the
impossibility of doing it in one weekend, they would have had to be in
on the conspiracy.

Are you still on that week end timetable? You have to know for sure the
planting of explosives could not have ever occured to be sure but you don't
even seem to have any clue about how much time was taken to plan 911. This
could have been planned for years so why are you so limited in your
thinking?


Clue 3. Further assuming that the charges were somehow placed without
notice (LMFAO), you have the problem of miles of det cord strung
throughout the building just prior to the demo in the middle of a work
day with noone noticing.

You are now an expert on this I see. You seem to be very simple minded and
a fool. You are clueless.