9/11-What witnesses really saw

reply to post by Niobis


Thanks for the reply.

Without quoting your entire post, I'll respond to your points in order.

Your first statement was about using common sense to ask ourselves what was the projectile. Whilst implying that it was in fact part of the plane.
Having seen some videos on the subject of the jet, it seems as I alluded to in an earlier post that the nose cone is not to the best of my knowledge very strongly built and would be expected to crumple inward upon impact rather than bust through steel and concrete etc. So I can't really answer the question without also speculating on the matter like you and everyone else, it could be part of one of the massive engines or even a piece of office equipment, although going by the pic it does seem quite large.
I'm not really sure how relevant that projectile is unless it can be used to prove that it was part of a commercial airliner or the alternative theory (a missile).

I look forward to your further information on the missile.

The JASSM does indeed look like a plane albeit a whole lot smaller.
The wingshape remind me of a corkscrew when the handles are bent back
when the cork is let's say two thirds of the way out of the bottle, the angle of the wings looks far more distinct that that of a 767.
Plus would argue that of the videos I have witnessed which show the plane, even the ones which you deem to be fake and including the ones on youtube which are trying to prove the 'no plane' or missile theory show a large aircraft with two large engines
on each wing. The JASSM does not have engines attached to its wings and
whilst in flight on the video it does look quite like some of the video
footage out there, the close up shots of the plane striking the wtc
does not look anything like it in my honest opinion.
e.g:... vwt.d2g.com:8081...
And bear in mind I am smply referencing the JASSM, I know you stated
it may have been a wholly different sort of missile but you will need
to maybe show me some images of other possibilities before I could
really believe this theory.

On the subject of Mr Arraki, you put a few lines together
but he didn't make that actual quote. I concede he did mention a small
plane but it was like this "I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside. A small plane."
GIBSON: You mean like a small single or double-engine prop plane?

Mr. ARRAKI: Yeah. GIBSON: You mean like a small single or double-engine prop plane?

But I have to say his eyewitness account is interesting and I have to say i wasn't aware of this individual before you mentioned him.

Thanks for the missile information.

The video which you wanted me to go to 4.00 to check out the similiarity
is one that does not seem to work for me, the video just refuses to
load but I did see the other one. If you have any alternative url for this
video I would be interested in taking a look.

thanks.

reply to post by pmexplorer


Like you, I will comment in order because I run out of characters with quotes.

In the picture I posted there are two projectiles. The one in question(that I believe to be the left-overs of a missile), is the one being followed by smoke. I haven't determined the size(nor have I found anyone that has), but I'm certain it is not big enough to be a 767 engine. And if it's a part of a 767 engine, how could only one small part escape? Shouldn't we see many parts or even the entire engine, if that is the case?

As for it being a piece of office equipment, that is plausible, but how would, for example, a larger printer/copier come out of the building, travel through the massive fireball and not catch fire? And where would it have exited the building, seeing as how there was no exit hole? The chances of it slipping out a window are very slim, wouldn't you agree? The fact that it is not on fire rules out office equipment, in my opinion.

No exit hole:
www.thewebfairy.com...

Here's another look at this projectile. This is a still from a video, and is much earlier in the explosion. I added the red square.



To me(and in my opinion), it is very relevant. This projectile has been my number one question about the South Tower attack. It can be seen in every video and every picture of the explosion. I think it is conclusive proof that missiles were used. And again, I'm still looking for some similar examples. Not an easy find.

Of course the "planes" are not going to look like a missile. That would defeat the whole purpose. The likely scenario is either one of two possibilities, or both. 1. The missile was edited out of the videos and a plane image was inserted. 2. The plane image was simply inserted over the missile.

The picture you linked to is a still from the "ghost plane" video. I wasn't trying to show the similarities between the JASSM and any "plane". The first video was to show the JASSM in flight and how witnesses might mistake it as a plane. I do not know what type of missiles were used, but I assume it was similar to a JASSM-something that would look like a plane.

The second video, which you have not been able to view yet, is to show how they used Army footage of a JASSM and tried to pass it off as a plane on 9/11. The video in which it is used is CNN's "Park Foreman" video. They simply used part of the Amry footage, and then as the "plane" approached they changed it to computer graphics. If you examine the "Park Foreman" video you can clearly see the switch between the JASSM footage and computer graphics. The "plane" changes shapes and becomes a darker shade of black.

Here's an alternative link to the JASSM video.

And here's the Park Foreman video in which they used JASSM footage. Notice how the "plane" changes shapes and colors. That was the transformation from JASSM footage to computer graphics.

Here's a video showing the transformation close-up. Just a friendly warning: this video can be annoying. I recommend turning off your sound.

And finally, just to further my point about missiles. I want to show you these two videos.

In this video we can clearly see something other than the fake plane hitting the South Tower. Is that a missile?

In this video we do not see a plane. But what I want to point out the most is the guy's reaction. Listen to what he thought hit the South Tower.

Edit:changed Park Foreman link

[edit on 14-8-2008 by Niobis]

Originally posted by Niobis

The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. ...

Lockheed Jetstar C-140 is approx 20 ft high
www.airliners.net...

Easiest most economical choice for military black ops to decide:
"What can we fill with explosives and remotely pilot into the WTC?"
An obsolete C-140 fits early eyewitness descriptions and the hole in the first tower hit on 9/11.

reply to post by himself


Who reported seeing a four engine business jet? I do not recall seeing ANYONE say that and NONE of the pictures taken that day match.

Have been watching a docmentary on British television channel 4 tonight
entitled 'The 9/11 Hotel' which tells the story of some of the guests of
the Marriott Hotel which stood at the foot of the twin towers.

I had previously not been aware of the proximity of the hotel to the world trade center complex.

An Irishman who was staying in the hotel because he was attending a meeting in one of the towers gave a detailed account of encountering a woman who had endured serious burns to her body from the jet fuel (his words) and helping her
find medical assistance as soon as possible.

It is serious heartfelt and frank accounts such as these which make me
frown upon arguments about no planes and missiles etc.

And as I've often said in previous posts, I remain completely open minded
on the topic of 9/11 and perpetrators of the events that occurred on that
fateful day.

I would urge anyone who hasn't seen this documentary to try to catch
it if it happens to be shown again or is available online.

I will post any links if I can find some, I am posting this with 30 mins of the documentaty yet to run. It is compelling viewing with some unbelievable footage of that day (which I had not seen previously) from ground zero.