Split From Kamikaze Attacks and the Effect of Speed

[BigAl]

I think you're going to need to get a grip on yourself and upon your emotional outbursts. Look, we have a disagreement. Unless you claim a lock on the ability to discern truth from falsity, you need to moderate your tone.

I'm the one who quoted Stephen Gregory. I have also called attention to what I think was 'cherry-picking' of his statement. Stephen Gregory's statement is neither overly long nor overly complex.

If you want to read it as standing for one thing, despite his saying I never saw it while I was standing there, then good luck to you.

Let me ask you this. As you sit here, do you know where he was standing, or would you like for me to answer that question for you?

Gregory says he heard this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVEmAWaKoYQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mGf0yW7MIM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U6KBtzoxp8&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjnzYZtle3w&NR=1

 

[332nd]

redtail,

Thank you for your query, the answer to which is not necessarily; but, if you have to have a "yes" or a "mo' answer, then, in that event, I'll go with a "yes" and here's why:

Have you noticed post #20?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5733830&postcount=20

In it, I think I raise the name Stanley Praimnath for the first time. While there are multiple and varying versions of Mr. Praimnath's improbable, nee magical, or miraculous, (depending upon one's religious inclination and way of describing things that are outside the realm of reason) story of survival of the alleged crash of a Boeing 767 through his office window, I suggest that math and science might need to take account of his story.

Please say hello to Mr. Stanley Praimnath posters:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/th_StanleyPraimnath.jpg

Afterall, the whole point is that math and science are fine, but they exist in and must be applied with respect to a context, not mere abstract calculations.

Let me say something that might surprise some. Math calculations are almost always wrong in the eyes of someone and scientific pronouncements are almost always disputed by someone. Consider, for instance, the current scientific muddle in the area of climate change.

In connection with any number of professional disciplines, there is an old joke that goes like this:

""Put X number of Y [professionals] in a room together and you will get X opinions."

Have any here among you heard that one?

I'll bet nearly all of you have. So, on that basis, permit me to suggest that posters here stop fooling their own damn selves with the "wise person" fallacy be it centered in math, in science, in law or in fishing for stripped bass or any other thing.

The essence of Mr. Praimnath's story is that he survived that alleged Boeing 767 crash, notwithstanding being in its direct hit area. Now, with due respect to math and to physics, the use of those disciplines to come up with impressively large quantifications consisting, by way of example in this thread of the claim that the alleged crash produced:

a) 4,380,000,000 joules, which is equal to

b) 2,093 pounds of TNT.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5736616&postcount=74

Wow, So, let us here assume, even though it hasn't been specifically proven, that the said quantity of joules and the said measure of TNT should have wreaked impossible to survive havoc upon that area of the South Tower where it hit and that there is no rational way for Mr. Praimnath to have survived the said quantities of the said energy and explosive equivalent.

The fact that not only he, but another person, who is described as coming to the aid of Mr. Praimnath both survived serves to falsify the claim put forward on the basis of math and physics.

Science does not accept magical outcomes and places no weight upon claims of miracles be they those that are derived from religious faith, or metaphysical magic, pagan ritual and/or krytonite.

Now, for howsoever large and impressive the number of joules and the poundage of TNT might be thought of as being, let us consider them in the context of our Mr. Stanley Praimnath who saw the alleged plane coming right at him and who, in one of his several accounts of what happened has stated:

"All I can see is this big gray plane, with red letters on the wing and on the tail, bearing down on me," said Stanley. "But this thing is happening in slow motion. The plane appeared to be like 100 yards away, I said 'Lord, you take control, I can't help myself here.' " Stanley then dove under his desk. "My Testament [Bible] was on top of my desk," explained Stanley. "I knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Lord was going to take care of me once I got there." As he curled into a fetal position under his desk, the plane tore into the side of the building and exploded. Miraculously, Stanley was unhurt. However, he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department. He knew he needed to get out of his office and the building fast. But, he was trapped under debris up to his shoulders. "Lord, you take control, this is your problem now," he recalled praying. "I don't know where I got this power from, but the good Lord, He gave me so much power and strength in my body that I was able to shake everything off. I felt like I was the strongest man alive." All the while, Stanley was asking to the Lord to spare his life. "I'm crying and I'm praying, 'Lord, I have things to do..., I want to see my family, Lord, help me through.' " Stanley's office resembled a battle zone--walls flattened into dusty heaps, office equipment strewn violently, flames flickering about and rubble everywhere. "Everything I'm trying to climb on [to get out] is collapsing and I'm going down," he said. "I'm getting cuts and bruises, but I'm saying, 'Lord, I have to go home to my loved ones, I have to make it, You have to help me.' " Suddenly Stanley saw the light of a flashlight. For a moment, it stunned him. "What were the chances of someone bringing a flashlight to this floor?," he thought. "My first gut reaction was, 'This is my guardian angel--my Lord sent somebody to save me!' " Stanley began screaming, "I see the light, I see the light." But after clawing his way through the debris, he realized that he couldn't get out--all the exits were blocked and his "guardian angel" couldn't get to him--a wall was between him and the staircase. "He can't get to me and I can't get to him, and by this time I can't breathe," Stanley said. "I don't know if it was sulfur or what, but I can smell this thing. I got down on my knees and said, "Lord, you've got to help me. You've brought me this far, help me to get to the staircase." But then Stanley did something surprising. While praying on his knees, Stanley called out to the man behind the wall, "There's one thing I got to know, do you know Jesus?" The man replied he went to church every Sunday. Then they prayed together to enable them to break through the wall".

So, in Mr. Praimnath's account, not only he, but another person nearby also survived.

That being the case, and for whatever point is being made based on the assertion that the alleged crash of a Boeing 767 resulted in the release of
a) 4,380,000,000 joules, which is equal to b) 2,093 pounds of TNT, that point does not include it being powerful enough to put a single scratch on Stanley Praimnath.

So, posters, no one has yet addressed Mr. Praimnath's survival, despite it having been first raised on page 1, post 20 of this thread.

Those of you are supportive of the stupid common myth have a lot of 'splainin' to do. Not to me, mind you; but rather to yourselves.

That's an "argument from personal incredulity" fallacy. Before I explain why I would like to ask, would you use a similar argument if one of the jumpers from the towers had survived?

 

[JohnG]

The visual evidence is not consistent with a Boeing 767 and is, instead, consistent with a psyop, based on deception and illusion; just as Evan Fairbanks, an eyewitness, said: "a bad special effect."

A "bad special effect" seen live by countless eyewitnesses???

Your reliance upon math and upon physics is deception personafied[sic].

Stundie-worthy?

That type of fallacy is well known and well-understood. It is deception pure and simple and goes by the name of the "wise-person" fallacy, where claims of greater than normal expertise are used to make the claim that those with less expertise cannot understand what only those with more expertise understand.

I'm unfamiliar with the "well known" "wise-person fallacy" and apparently so is Google. The only place Google finds it mentioned anywhere on the Internet is this very thread. Maybe you're thinking of "Appeal to Authority"? You'd still be wrong but at least you'd be using an actual term.

Your descriptor "Flight 175" is interestingly stated. By "flight 175" I take it you mean to infer that a jetliner, make Boeing and model 767-200 comes into contact with the South Tower, aka WTC2, of the World Trade Center, correct?

The improper use of inferences, based upon deceptive attempts to hide behind obscure, complex and therefore obfuscated scientific reasoning has one primary purpose: That of deceptive explanation.

And, with your basic and self-proclaimed monopoly on the virtue of knowledge fully self-declared, what interest are you conceivably seeking to advance in your silly, conceited and imminently useless post?

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. Maybe you should stick with terms like "shadow thingy" instead of trying to pretend you're more intelligent than you actually are?

 

[Jackanory]

Rhetoric and assumptions. You've also disregarded my earlier posts on this that demonstrate there was no sound of jet engines according to 3 witnesses I quoted and according to the lack of accounts of people suffering busted ear drums. As you have referenced "a jet running flat-out at low altitude as heard by the multitudes along Manhattan island on 9/11" I think it incumbent upon you to support your unproven assertion with reports of damaged hearing and of medical treatment for it.

I have shown witnesses, big al, and quoted them. I have also highligted that in the video form pg. 1 there was no sound of a jetliner up to the 24sec. mark in that video. The loudest sound in that video was a siren.

As you have presupposed "a jet running flat-out at low altitude as heard by the multitudes along Manhattan Island on 9/11" I here assert that I have falsified your claim in two separte and reliable ways already posted.

Liar

Your witnesses debunked you remember. Your witnesses, those that you brought to us - all either saw or heard the aircraft. You posted their quotes. You debunked yourself. You clearly dont read the stuff you post.

You go on to debunk yourself again and post the name of a further witness who survived. A real witness who you believed. You believed him so much that you introduced him in a granduoso manner and posted his quote and relied upon it. Remember him -the witness that states he saw a big grey aircraft with lettering. The witness who saw the wing. Remember him.

Classic truther who comes to debunk himself and bog the thread down with his own self debunking witnesses. No smarter than Roger Misner.

 

[jammonius]

Jam - what do you expect to observe in a high-speed, high angle-of-attack impact of a 757 and a structure such as a WTC tower? What differs from what was observed?

The energies exerted on both the 757 and the local WTC structure so overwhelmed their design capacities that an near-instantaneous (from a human perspective) and global failure of both allowed the 757 to flow into the tower stucture.

Yes- I'm claiming the 757s flowed into the towers.



Though the quote isn't yours, that sums up the claim of anomoly, right?

Here's the rest of the quote:



ValueJet 592 impacted terrain in the Florida Everglades on May 11, 1996.

Greetings cylinder,

I think you mean a Boeing 767 in the case of the Twin Towers, but as I assert no such thing happened, let me be clear. Even if you do mean a 757 based on some information you have that you aren't sharing, I assert that claim is inaccurate, too.

I think your focus is misplaced. The energies should have overwhelmed the hollow aluminum tube as it impacted the steel perimeter beams and the concrete floors.

As a result of such impact, I would have expected the appearance of billowy black smoke, consistent with gritty kerosene, because that is what jet fuel is, and an apparent organish explosion occurring upon impact in the place of impact. That did not happen.

I would have also expected unquestionable jetliner debris, including recognizable parts like wings or parts thereof, and the the tail section lor parts thereof to have landed on the south side of WTC 2, not having the capacity to both remain intact and penetrate the WTC. Instead, they should have broken apart and fallen someplace.

I would also have expected undeniable jet engine noise and a crash that should have been so loud that it burst the ear drums of many, if not most of the people in the immediate vicinity.

Instead, there are numerous people who report the event was "whisper quiet."

Among those who should have suffered ear damage and injury from debris are David Handschuh, who was right underneath wtc2 and who took the photo I posted earlier. He reported neither seeing nor hearing a jetliner.

I would also not expect Mr Stanley Praimnath to have survived.

I am deeply troubled by the appearance, elsewhere than at the point of impact of a lighter, grayish smoke and a main fireball, not at the point of impact, but on the side opposite it. That is utterly incongruent.


This is bizarre:

Furthermore, as to the side with the main fireball, the building itself also shows relatively little damage there and nothing that would suggest an otherward explosion in terms of debris. Indeed, examination of some photos shows that not a lot of windows were even blown out.

I would like to invite posters here to post up visual evidence supporting their own assertions concerning the explosion if that is to be the subject here.

Let me be clear. I am not putting myself in the position of answering posters questions. This is a dialogue. We each ask AND answer each other's questions and our own. This is not a situation where my answers are subject to unilateral critique. Post up your own answers please.

 

[Jackanory]

Please say hello to Mr. Stanley Praimnath posters:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/th_StanleyPraimnath.jpg[/qimg]


The fact that not only he, but another person, who is described as coming to the aid of Mr. Praimnath both survived serves to falsify the claim put forward on the basis of math and physics.

"All I can see is this big gray plane, with red letters on the wing and on the tail, bearing down on me," said Stanley. The plane appeared to be like 100 yards away, the plane tore into the side of the building and exploded. Miraculously, Stanley was unhurt. However, he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department. He knew he needed to get out of his office and the building fast. But, he was trapped under debris up to his shoulders. " Stanley's office resembled a battle zone--walls flattened into dusty heaps, office equipment strewn violently, flames flickering about and rubble everywhere. "I don't know if it was sulfur or what, but I can smell this thing. ".


So, posters, no one has yet addressed Mr. Praimnath's survival, despite it having been first raised on page 1, post 20 of this thread.

Those of you are supportive of the stupid common myth have a lot of 'splainin' to do. Not to me, mind you; but rather to yourselves.

May i present Jams witness, Mr Stanley Praimnath, Remember him Jam. Your witness who saw the grey plane and red writing and the wing.

 

[Jackanory]

Greetings cylinder,

I think you mean a Boeing 767 in the case of the Twin Towers, but as I assert no such thing happened, let me be clear. Even if you do mean a 757 based on some information you have that you aren't sharing, I assert that claim is inaccurate, too.

I think your focus is misplaced. The energies should have overwhelmed the hollow aluminum tube as it impacted the steel perimeter beams and the concrete floors.

As a result of such impact, I would have expected the appearance of billowy black smoke, consistent with gritty kerosene, because that is what jet fuel is, and an apparent organish explosion occurring upon impact in the place of impact. That did not happen.

I would have also expected unquestionable jetliner debris, including recognizable parts like wings or parts thereof, and the the tail section lor parts thereof to have landed on the south side of WTC 2, not having the capacity to both remain intact and penetrate the WTC. Instead, they should have broken apart and fallen someplace.

I would also have expected undeniable jet engine noise and a crash that should have been so loud that it burst the ear drums of many, if not most of the people in the immediate vicinity.

Instead, there are numerous people who report the event was "whisper quiet."

Among those who should have suffered ear damage and injury from debris are David Handschuh, who was right underneath wtc2 and who took the photo I posted earlier. He reported neither seeing nor hearing a jetliner.

I would also not expect Mr Stanley Praimnath to have survived.

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/th_19670630-2-C-d-1-500.jpg[/qimg]

I am deeply troubled by the appearance, elsewhere than at the point of impact of a lighter, grayish smoke and a main fireball, not at the point of impact, but on the side opposite it. That is utterly incongruent.


This is bizarre:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/th_wtc2exposionlarge.png[/qimg]

Furthermore, as to the side with the main fireball, the building itself also shows relatively little damage there and nothing that would suggest an otherward explosion in terms of debris. Indeed, examination of some photos shows that not a lot of windows were even blown out.

I would like to invite posters here to post up visual evidence supporting their own assertions concerning the explosion if that is to be the subject here.

Let me be clear. I am not putting myself in the position of answering posters questions. This is a dialogue. We each ask AND answer each other's questions and our own. This is not a situation where my answers are subject to unilateral critique. Post up your own answers please.

Mr Stanley Praimnath, Remember him Jam. Your witness who saw the grey plane and red writing and the wing. The best witness you ever posted. He will long be remembered here. We wont let you forget him -Mr Stanley Praimnath.

 

[BigAl]

Greetings cylinder,

I think you mean a Boeing 767 in the case of the Twin Towers, but as I assert no such thing happened, let me be clear. Even if you do mean a 757 based on some information you have that you aren't sharing, I assert that claim is inaccurate, too.

Here are videos of Flight 11 and Flight 175 that show what people heard. If you were inside a building or on a firetruck with the siren running the sound wasn't easy to tell from all the other traffic noises in rush hour NYC.

How were these engine sounds faked?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVEmAWaKoYQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mGf0yW7MIM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U6KBtzoxp8&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjnzYZtle3w&NR=1
​

 

[dtugg]

No planers are all batcrap crazy.

 

[Jackanory]

Jamoniou has produced a witness

This is what Jamonious witness says-

"All I can see is this big gray plane, with red letters on the wing and on the tail, bearing down on me," said Stanley. The plane appeared to be like 100 yards away, the plane tore into the side of the building and exploded. Miraculously, Stanley was unhurt. However, he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department. He knew he needed to get out of his office and the building fast. But, he was trapped under debris up to his shoulders. " Stanley's office resembled a battle zone--walls flattened into dusty heaps, office equipment strewn violently, flames flickering about and rubble everywhere. "I don't know if it was sulfur or what, but I can smell this thing. ".

The no planer cocked up and produced probably the best witness from inside the building. He saw the plane. He saw the wing. He saw the lettering.

 

[A W Smith]

No planers are all batcrap crazy.

His is purely an argument from ignorance.
And as we all have seen Jammonius has a lock on ignorance. He ignored the question of how "a shadow thingy"made the towers sway.

As Cruz rejoined the heavy stream of people on the smoky stairwell, the second plane hit. This time, it was his tower.

``The whole building moved and it was swaying back and forth. I heard a muffled boom and I thought everything was just going to collapse. People were rushing and merging together and going crazy,'' he said.

When he finally got to the ground floor, dust and smoke had darkened the air. Amid the debris that littered the ground, Cruz said he saw a burnt torso.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/11_APwitnesses.html


``The building swayed probably about two feet,'' Jackson said. ``I thought at that point it was going to topple over. That was the moment I was probably the most scared.''

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/11_APwitnesses.html

85th floor

“We were just working,” he says. “All of a sudden, we heard this slamming sound that was so loud. The debris started falling outside the windows, and the door to the office blew open. The building started swaying, and it was hard to say if the building would remain standing. I was in my chair, and I just grabbed onto my desk.

“After five or 10 seconds, the building stopped moving, and we knew we had to leave. We all grabbed our bags and headed out.” They walked down to the 78th floor where they were guided to another stairwell, crossing a lobby with a bank of elevators. The marble walls of the lobby were buckled. http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=3426


85th floor
"Marvin W. Pickrum,...85th floor inside Tower One....It felt like the building leaned, like standing with your back to the waves in the ocean."

"...SMW Trading Company. He still didn't know what was going on outside when his knees suddenly buckled. He only saw the clear blue skies out the window.

""But when I turned around all I saw was the fire and smoke," he recalled. "I saw a silhouette of my own body and my arms were singed. I got a full breath of air, then..." http://4bypass.com/archives/nov-01.htm


http://911stories.googlepages.com/in...saccounts91-60

 

[jammonius]

delete duplicate. don't how that happened

 

[jammonius]

big al,

I haven't taken a look at your videos as yet. Can you rank them in order of priority where No. 1 is what you consider your "best shot." And, can you say the timing interval within your best shot is the best one to look at.

As you know, I do not think discussion is advanced when you post up a long list of items or videos with no real insight as to what is to be found in your source. I am not inclined to go on a wild goose chase of that nature.

Now, in accordance with a "do onto others" reciprocal approach, let me here introduce witness David Sandvik:

"We start heading down the block and we get down to I guess about Church Street and the second plane hit, and I remember just being underneath. I never heard the motor of the plane, the sound of the engines. We just heard the explosion, you felt the explosion, and looking straight up and seeing that fireball that you see on the news, but we’re underneath looking up now at it."

See pg. 4 at:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110375.PDF

I think this is the way to go here. Let's see what witnesses actually say. I think for those posters who may not know it, there is a tendency to be seen amongst actual witnesses. The tendency has two components as follows:

1--The higher the rank of the individual witness, if the witness was a first responder, the more likely that person is to say he or she neither saw nor heard a plane; and

2--The closer to the actual location of WTC 2 the person was, the more likely that person was to say they neither saw nor heard a jetliner.

 

[BigAl]

big al,

I haven't taken a look at your videos as yet. Can you rank them in order of priority where No. 1 is what you consider your "best shot." And, can you say the timing interval within your best shot is the best one to look at.

Each is 1 or 2 minutes long.

If you can't afford that time for all the time you've spent typing, your priorities are ass-backwards.

 

[A W Smith]

Are you an idiot? And when prey tell, will you ever figure out how the message board quote function works? Or are you ignoring that as well?

"We start heading down the block and we get down to I guess about Church Street and the second plane hit, and I remember just being underneath. I never heard the motor of the plane, the sound of the engines. We just heard the explosion, you felt the explosion, and looking straight up and seeing that fireball that you see on the news, but we’re underneath looking up now at it."

 

[W.D.Clinger]

LOL, you can't be this bad at physics; can you?

If jammonius has proved anything, that would be it.

Your problem is this equation and you are not on talking terms, E=mv².

If he knew anything about physics, he'd have pointed out that your equation is off by a factor of 2.

But he doesn't:

And, by the way, I am happy to draw a line in the sand with you on this. Your reliance upon math and upon physics is deception personafied. That type of fallacy is well known and well-understood. It is deception pure and simple and goes by the name of the "wise-person" fallacy, where claims of greater than normal expertise are used to make the claim that those with less expertise cannot understand what only those with more expertise understand.

jammonius prefers the "unwise-person" fallacy, in which the ignorance of unwise persons somehow suspends the laws of physics.

 

[I Ratant]

Each is 1 or 2 minutes long.

If you can't afford that time for all the time you've spent typing, your priorities are ass-backwards.

.
Everything else is, why should that be the exception?

 

[A W Smith]

I think this is the way to go here. Let's see what witnesses actually say. I think for those posters who may not know it, there is a tendency to be seen amongst actual witnesses. The tendency has two components as follows:

1--The higher the rank of the individual witness, if the witness was a first responder, the more likely that person is to say he or she neither saw nor heard a plane; and

2--The closer to the actual location of WTC 2 the person was, the more likely that person was to say they neither saw nor heard a jetliner.

Because, By the time the plane got to where they were. the flight had ended. Can you even grasp how sound travels? If an aircraft is heading toward your location. Which way are the engines facing? It has nothing to do with first responder rank you moron. Add to that the Doppler effect. ever hear of it?

As far as seeing it. If you are somewhere at the base of a four sided tower in the caverns of lower Manhattan. you have in all likelihood , a 75% chance of not seeing it. And that's if you are looking up.

 

[jammonius]

This is what Jamonious witness says-

"All I can see is this big gray plane, with red letters on the wing and on the tail, bearing down on me," said Stanley. The plane appeared to be like 100 yards away, the plane tore into the side of the building and exploded. Miraculously, Stanley was unhurt. However, he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department. He knew he needed to get out of his office and the building fast. But, he was trapped under debris up to his shoulders. " Stanley's office resembled a battle zone--walls flattened into dusty heaps, office equipment strewn violently, flames flickering about and rubble everywhere. "I don't know if it was sulfur or what, but I can smell this thing. ".

The no planer cocked up and produced probably the best witness from inside the building. He saw the plane. He saw the wing. He saw the lettering.

jackanory,

Thank you for posting and for using a page from my posting book, that of use of large letters.

The issue is that what people say almost always reveals something about them.

Do you know when Mr. Praimnath's account first appeared? I think it was at some point in 2002, many months after the event.

Do you accept that the shadow thingy was reliably clocked at traversing through the air at more than 500mph? If so, do you accept that speed translates to about 250 yards per second? And, given that rate of speed, jackanory, do you credit or discredit Mr. Praimnath's account where he states, as and how you quote, as follows:

"All I can see is this big gray plane, with red letters on the wing and on the tail, bearing down on me," said Stanley. The plane appeared to be like 100 yards away, the plane tore into the side of the building and exploded.

And, given that same attributed speed and all the joules and all the TNT that other posters have referenced, do credit or discredit the following:

However, he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department.

While not quoted by either you or by me here, so far, another of Mr. Praimnath's versions of his story has him both seeing the jetliner right on top of him, so to speak, and also allowing him to have enough time to go from one end of his office to another and hide under his desk which then served to do what the perimeter steel columns of the WTC could not do, that is, stop the jetliner in its tracks, all while not harming him in the least.

Let me be clear.

I here assert that Mr. Stanley Praimnath's survival and his account of it confrim as well as any single witness that what happened on 9/11 involved a shadow thingy and not a Boeing 767.

thanks

 

[BigAl]

2--The closer to the actual location of WTC 2 the person was, the more likely that person was to say they neither saw nor heard a jetliner.[/B]

If you were indoors or in a firetruck racing to WTC, the roar was masked by traffic and siren noises.

The author of this book interviewed and described the details of the some of countless people that saw the planes hit and got to take photographs.

Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11
By David Friend


People that were outdoors and had a running video camera recorded these videos. You only had a couple seconds and you had to be good or lucky to get the audible directional clues right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVEmAWaKoYQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mGf0yW7MIM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U6KBtzoxp8&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjnzYZtle3w&NR=1
​

What do you think hit the towers and made them sway as reported by these eyewitnesses?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5737747#post5737747