Ed All 43 videos "Second Hit"" [Explosion]at WTC 2: Plane or No Plane?

[Vermonter]

Jammonius, lurker de-lurking. Please provide evidence that the plane pieces could have been feasibly planted, as you say, before or after the towers collapsed, with no one noticing. Do you believe that the populace of lower Manhattan is also in on the cover-up? Do you believe that every single person who witnessed the collisions are lying and delusional? Also, why do you post images from the Youtube video that are purposefully grainy or low-quality, when there are many segments that have much higher quality (for a youtube video)?

 

[Thunder]

Do you believe that every single person who witnessed the collisions are lying and delusional?

he believed that until they post on JREF, they do not exist.

video can be faked. photos can be touched up. he is just being a skeptic.

 

[Vermonter]

he believed that until they post on JREF, they do not exist.

video can be faked. photos can be touched up. he is just being a skeptic.

I think he's a lost cause, honestly. If he truly, deeply believes that holograms did it, no amount of attempts to show him the contrary will sway him. It will always be hand-waved away, or he'll call you shills working for the government, or you're actually Jewish Aliens from Reptilion 6. It's sad, really. There is no reasoning with his type.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

he believed that until they post on JREF, they do not exist.

video can be faked. photos can be touched up. he is just being a skeptic.

If he is serious, and not trolling, I think mental illness may be at play..

 

[djlunacee]

If he is serious, and not trolling, I think mental illness may be at play..

in his own mind, he doesn't even exist.

 

[jammonius]

42​

Breakfast. :Similar to the one I had on 9/11
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_268324c30d9f7a4a6c.jpg[/qimg]

Suspiciously absent from the frame are any noise thought to be that coming from from a jet engine. Moreover, you'd be hard pressed to see any visual evidence of a Boeing in the above picture. The lack of toast and coffee is due to the fact that my girlfriend pinched the toast while I got up to go get my coffee, thus proving there was no bread on 9/11.

Are you beginning to see Lurkers?

The above post is much appreciated for the big red and centered number 42. It serves as a reference for:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43title/42-shadowblob935.png?t=1278278851

Version # 42, from Fox News, has no sound and has a shadow thingy that is both blurry and a blob.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

The best way to interpret the above photo is as of proof of wrongdoing, either planting or tampering. There are other ways to interpret the photo, but the only reasonable way to interpret it is as evidence of planting/tampering. Do you agree?



In your twisted paranoia laced world view, apparently so - But not in the real world.
You seem to think any photo of people touching airplane debris if of them planting it.
That still is not proof- what you are offering is a paranoid interpretation of photographs. You continue to ignore eye witness testimony of those who saw the planes crash on 9/11.

 

[dafydd]

What jammonius should really be doing is this:

1. Tell us what his theory is
2. Make predictions from theory
3. Find evidence that support those predictions
4. Explain other evidence in light of that theory, or enhance theory if theory so far can not explain that other evidence
5. Count the unsopported assumptions needed to keep theory afloat
6. Stop when count gets ridiculously high.




So, jammo:
1. What's your theory?
2. What kind of pictures in the 43 videos would that theory predict?
3. What is your evidence for that prediction - physical or engineering principles etc.? Show work!
4.1.1 Would that theory predict shadowy things approaching the towers in these videos?
4.1.2 If not, how do you expand your theory to account for all shadowy things seen in the actual evidence - what are these shadowy things?
4.1.3 Do you have any evidence for that explanation of shadowy things, or would that constitute an unsupported additional assumption?
5.1 If the latter, increase count by one for each such assumption (might get as high as 43 if you need a separate entity fpr each video with shadowy thing in it)
4.2.1 Would your theory predict finding plane debris in the streets and on the roofs of Lower Manhattan?
4.2.2 If not, how do you expand your theory to explain the finding of plane debris in the streets and on the roofs of Manhattan?
4.2.3 Do you have any evidence for that explanation of plane debris, or would that constitute an unsupported additional assumption?
5.2 If the latter, increase count by one for each such assumption
4.3.1 Would your theory predict recorded radar tracks that show to airliners approaching Manhatten rapidly and getting lost close to the WTC in ground clutter?
4.3.2 If not, what are your additional assumptions and your evidence for these assumptions?
4.4.1 Would your theory predict that forensic experts identify by DNA several of the passengers who departed Boston Intl. aboard AA11 and UA175 from human remains found in the rubble of Ground Zero?
4.4.2 If not, what are your additional assumptions and your evidence for these assumptions?

etc.

You will receive no answers from Jammy.He regards such straightforward questions as 'gotcha' stuff.It's his way of avoiding reality.

 

[dafydd]

As to proof of the claims I am making, let me remind you and the lurkers that I am doing so, post in and post out; page in and page out. I offer up at least one new data set totally insane idea with each passing page and will do so until at least page 44.


Do better

Fixed that for you.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

".. I have often said there are viable and reliable witnesses who report seeing and hearing a plane -- they number, in the aggregate that I can find, about 20. ."


So you admit planes hit the WTC? or do you think they were holograms?
There are conciderably more than 20 people who have spoken and written about having seen and heard the planes hit the towers-
You just choose to dismiss their accounts, because they contradict your absurd theories..
I'd really like you to go to NY, and look into the eyes of the people who watched the nightmare unfold on 9/11. and tell them they imagined it all.

How dare you.

You cheapen the memories of those who were murdered, and you make excuses for the radical Islamic terrorist hijackers.


"However, there are far more witnesses who report either not seeing and hearing a plane or seeing and hearing "an explosion." In fact, the single most frequent witness report contained in the reliable and verifiable sources of witness statements almost uniformly report seeing and hearing an explosion"


As I mentioned, I live in Boston, and since I can't see NY from my home, I certainly didn't see the planes hit the towers. Is that proof the planes never crashed? using your logic it would be.
You continue to dismiss the accounts of the people who were in NY and NJ who saw and heard the planes hit the wtc, because it deflates your tinfoil hat no-planer/hologram delusiuons. There were hundreds of eye witnesses to the planes hitting the towers. Multiple cameras caught the
2nd plane impact at the WTC, and at least 2 cameras filmed the first plane crash at the WTC

Airplane debris was strewn all over the street and on nearby rooftops. The remains of people from the planes were later identified at the site. The plane crashes were caught on film. Yet you dismiss all of this.....

The next thing you'll be claiming is that the WTC never existed..

 

[jammonius]

1. Most of the videos taken from within lower Manhattan during the time of the "explosions" at the twin towers do contain sound, and specifically do contain the sound of jet engine. This specifically includes the Dick Oliver video from the forbidden thread where everybody except you hears the sounds of jet engines swelling up until the explosion.

As we have now a thread containing 42 of the 43 video versions conveniently posted and linked with time markers, it is incomplete to post a claim that most contain sound without asserting how many do and how many don't Accordingly, your post is not substantiated in a context where it easily could be.

Accordingly, a refutation of like-kind and quality, and therefore of equal validity, is to say, as I now do: Your claim is false. Less than half of the videos contain sound and fewer than 10 contain a sound prior to the explosion that can even give rise to a claim that the sound might be that of a jetliner. Finally, as the sound of a jetliner is an everyday experience, people know and can articulate correctly when they have heard that sound. I here assert there are none that sound like a jetliner. I here also assert that eye and ear witness Stephen Gregory who both described the particulars of the sound he heard and who said he didn't think that what he heard was the sound of a plane is true and correct.

I have here refuted Oystein fully. The eye and ear witness, Stephen Gregory, trumps anything Oystein has posted as Oystein has not posted a single witness or even linked to a single video segment for that matter.

The Dick Oliver discussion took place over the course of 60+ pages of discussion in two threads:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=171082

-------------------------

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174043

Those threads confirm that the consensus was that an explosion had occured, not a plane crash. The sound was that of the subway atop which the camera sat and next to which the buses parked. Plus, all witnesses were nonchalant to that sound, with one exception, Our Lady in Blue, who looked to her side and who appears to have seen the explosion.

Oystein has posted an easily refuted post segment.

2. You have to distort and otherwise rape most eyewitness accounts to feed the delusion that those who say they saw and/or heard a plane did not see or hear a plane. When you recruit these plane-witnesses as no-plane witnesses, everybody, without exception, realized that you were telling a falsehood, a deception, a lie.

You continue to couch your posting in terms in general, non-specific terms. Let me here double check for accuracy: Oystein, are you speaking about Dr. Matthews, the person who did not see a plane hit the North Tower and who, with respect to the South Tower said "we saw" rather than "I saw"?

If so, fine. I posted my reasons for challenging the "we saw" declaration that was uttered by both Matthews and others, as I will demonstrate, by and by. I have said the declaration "we saw" makes his statement inadmissible as evidence. It is stupidly false to calim that doing so "distort or rape ...eyewitnesses." That is a factual statement. Someone who identified him/herself as a lawyer agreed with that, albeit, reluctantly. Accordingly, your continued use of the word "liar" makes your post stupid, insidid and inane.

Now onto your theory "holography".

I suspect it might be better to start a new thread on the holography issue and I will give consideration to doing so. That said, I consider the issue of holograms to be part and parcel of this thread as it does provide a necessary corrollary to the issue of what, exactly, is shadow thingy? A question that does cry out for answering.

We, as a society, have an interest in knowing what it was that appeared to have some, but not many, characteristics of a jetliner that could be projected on teevee, seen by some, but not by most.

So, to get started on this process, here's what I can suggest for group consideration:

Firstly, a primary source of information about military holograms would appear to be the Air Force 2025 survey, a document prepared almost 15 years ago.

My assumption is that military publications about future weapons systems contain information that the military wants us to have -- unclassified information -- and which disguises the extent to which the weapons and the weapons concepts mentioned in unclassified documents have already been developed. Such information would only be available in classified documents of which I have none at all and do not particularly seek.

Because we only have access to unclassified information, we necessarily have to engage in inferential thinking and we cannot know, for certain, whether we are right in our claims and denials or wrong in them. That factor does not impact on my posting very much as I do not stake out postions based on who is right and who is wrong. I am here speaking for myself.

With that frame of reference in mind, I can offer the following sources that posters and lurkers can look up and then, of course, using their own research skills, take their research further based on these initial sources:

2025 concept, no. 200015, "Distortion Field Projector," 2025 concepts database (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air War College/2025, 1996); 2025 concept, no. 900313, "Spaceborne/Airborne Hologram," 2025 concepts database (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air War College/2025, 1996); 2025 concept, no. 900570, "Deceptive Holographic Imaging," 2025 concepts database (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air War College/2025, 1996); 2025 concept, no. 900390, "Holographic Battlefield Deception," 2025 concepts database (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air War College/2025, 1996); 2025 concept, no. 900756, "Holographic Deception Operations," 2025 concepts database (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air War College/2025, 1996); 2025 concept, no. 900792, "Holographic CCD," 2025 concepts database (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air War College/2025, 1996).

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c14/v3c14-7.htm#92

The foregoing sources were preceded by the following statement that helps put the military demand for holographic weapons into proper perspective:


Sun Tzu said "all war is based on deception."91 Military commanders have always sought to hide their intentions, capabilities, and forces from their opponents. The most prominent modern example of deceptive techniques is stealth technology, which seeks to hide platforms from sensors by reducing the various sensor cross sections (i.e., radar, optical, infrared, acoustic, etc.). Modern advances in holographic technologies suggest another possibility: weapons that project false images to deceive the opponent.92

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usaf/2025/v3c14/v3c14-3c.htm

As to the existence of such weapons in 2001, it is often said that whatever the military says about weapons it wants 25 years hence, it likely already has them.

Can you please explain in rough outlines what holography is - you might consider tackling some of these (less than 20) questions:
* What physical laws are involved?
* How are holograms made? Materials and processes
* What type of hologram could have been used for the special effects you envision
* Where, how and by whom were these holograms placed on that day?
* Any idea about the necessary size?
* Can a hologram be projected?
* On what kind of background can a hologram be projected?

Once we know your theory about holography on 9/11, can you make some predictions on what should or could have been observed on 9/11, and provide some evidence that these predictions are satisfied!

Are you then ready to accept challenges, such as falsifiable predictions from your theory? Will you be willing to rectract your theory if indeed it is falsified?

Let's revisit your list of queries after we get some feedback on the starting informational sources that I have posted up. In the meantime, you might like to take a crack at providing us with some source information that you think it is useful. As you know, you are not my teacher, I am not your student and I sure as heck am not going off on any wild goose chases at your behest.

 

[Oystein]

...
As to your request that I "...provide evidence that the plane pieces could have been feasibly planted..." I need to double check for accuracy of understanding:

No. You need not double check. You need to provide evidence! Because...

...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6094093&postcount=1630

As you will have noted, post # 1630 itself linked to another post of mine on the issue of planting of plane part evidence and both posts contained photographic evidence of such planting.

Neither this post nor any post linked to therein contains anything that could even vaguely be comsidered such proof. You see...

Both posts also referenced my having posted yet another prior proof of plane part planting and named that one as one involving the Pentagon.

The photo that gives rise to that claim of planting is this one:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album2/pentplant.jpg?t=1278275459[/qimg]

The best way to interpret the above photo is as of proof of wrongdoing, either planting or tampering. There are other ways to interpret the photo, but the only reasonable way to interpret it is as evidence of planting/tampering. Do you agree?

..."either plating or tampering" is not equal to "planting". If you want to prove that something has been "planted", it would not suffice to prove it was "planted or tampered". (Not even considering the fact that not even "planting or tampering" is proven by a photo that shows someone carrying a piece of evidence, since eventually every piece of evidence in every forensic investigation will be removed from the crime scene. You will notice in any ordinary murder scene that neither the murder victim nor the bloody knife will stay on location indefinitely)

...
So, in asking for "more proof" had you taken into consideration the proof heretofore offered?

He has not, as there was no proof to be considered.

...the 43 known video versions of an image, most accurately referred to as a shadowy, silouetted depiction of a jet plane of some sort

Oh wow - jammonius admitting that a jet plane is depicted in each of the 43 videos! Take note!
Reminder: Our theory involves planes and thus provides an explanation for the "shadowy, silouetted depiction of a jet plane of some sort" in each of the 43 videos and in fact would predict exactly such a thing in most videos of the event. We are thus far lacking a coherent alternative "no-plane" theory explaining what we see or even predicting what we see. "Holography" doesn't cut it if you can't or don't outline how holography would have been applied.

...
Would you please re-write your query so as to clearly state your vital assumptions and omit those that are not vital.

We have yet to see your set of vital assumptions (must be a very long list)

This reuest that you formulate your question can be helped along, I think, by my asking you whether you have seen my posts that articulate the perspective that the military exercises taking place on 9/11 provided a mechanism and a means by which the events of 9/11 could have been successfully carried out under the quise of the exercises and where as few as a handful of people might actually have known the full details of what was to happen?

Hey hey, you are not on a wild goose chase here with that 20-questions-gotcha-game?

...You ask:

"Do you believe that every single person who witnessed the collisions are lying and delusional? "

Vermonter, I have often said there are viable and reliable witnesses who report seeing and hearing a plane -- they number, in the aggregate that I can find, about 20. However, there are far more witnesses who report either not seeing and hearing a plane or seeing and hearing "an explosion." In fact, the single most frequent witness report contained in the reliable and verifiable sources of witness statements almost uniformly report seeing and hearing an explosion.

You counting only 20 of course means nothing. Could be 2 million witnesses of which you happen to know only 20.
It is of course natural that most witnesses would report an explosion. This is precisely what the "plane" theory would predict.
You need to explain how your DEW/holography theory would predict and explain reports of explosions.

I have shown that to be true beyond controversy. I have also shown, beyond controversy, that the commonly held viewpoint that there are "1000s of plane spotter witnesses" is false.

No you have not.

...
Posters here have apparently now conceded that there are not "1000s of witnesses" as you will note, on this page even, that posters now only claim "scores of witnesses."

At most we'd have to concede that at this time we can only produce scores and not 1000s of such witnesses and their statements. Many people undoubtedly witnesses the sun rise this morning, but I have to concede that I can not at this time present even a singel such witness. Does that mean the sun did not rise this morning? Foolishness!

...Soon, I suspect they'll start coming to grips that, in terms of numbers of witnesses, there are, in fact, more NO PLANE witnesses than there are PLANE SPOTTER ones.

You have not produced a single witness that was in a position to see a plane, was looking, and claims that he or she would have seen a plane if there had been one, but did not see one. It is only through distortion and sophism that you contort witness statements to claim they mean the opposite of what they say. I call this flat-out lies, jammonius.

I hope this both answers your quoted query and places it in proper perspective.

It most certainly doesn't.

...please do not expect to get very far if you resort to the tricks that a lot of posters here try to get away with.

The only tricky one here is you, jammonius.

I don't demand much. I will answer all legitimate questions that are posed and that I have time for.

But before you do, you will decides yourself what is legitimate and what isn't, right? And you will use the following criterion: If an honest answer will show your delusions to be delusional, you will count that as "not legitimate". If you find a way to toss a word salad and thereby dodge a serious and honorable answer, you'll deem it "legitimate".

...Your final query is:

"Also, why do you post images from the Youtube video that are purposefully grainy or low-quality, when there are many segments that have much higher quality (for a youtube video)?"
...
One poster posted up an archive link that contains about 100 sources that have to be individually linked. That is not user friendly.

But unavoidable if you want to get at the truth. It is convenient and friendly to your delusions to rely on bad images. It is convenient and friendly to the truth to rely on good quality images.
Since you derile the videos of planes as showing "shadowy things", it is immediately clear that image quality is of utmost importance. What looks like a "shadowy thing" in a low quality video may very well look clearly like a plane in a high-quality video of the same. No amount of word-salad can discuss that away.

Another poster, Femr2, posted up a link to some HD versions and that is fine. We can use HD versions. But, the poster did not post links that provide a frame of reference for each individual one.

Huh? Just asses the information on their own value!

And, more importantly, the poster did not show how the HD versions refute the non-HD ones. The fact is, the HD versions serve mostly to confirm that the shadow thingy cannot possibly be a real jetliner.

Notwithstanding the fact that you are utterly alone with this opinion - what ELSE could the shadowy thingy be?

Furthermore, in my posting, if I have a concern for why a poster might have said a certain thing, or if I interpret a poster in a certain way, I will normally double check with the poster as to meaning before coming to a conclusion that impugns the poster.

Wrong. Your "double checking" is a tedious way of saying "I do not respect what you say and will go any length to distort your statement"

 

[jammonius]

The evidence of holography is 'quite strong'? What is this 'evidence' you speak of? There are scores of accounts of people who heard and saw the planes hit the towers. Many people who did not see the moment of impact heard the jet engines.
What is particulary offensive is that are pretty much calling all of the eye witnesses to the attacks liars.
The hologram theory is pure lunacy- we don't have such advanced holographic technology...

What is your proof the planes were holograms?

Hey Lurkers,

We are making progress!

Titanic Explorer says, and I quote:

"...There are scores of accounts of people who heard and saw the planes hit the towers..."

That is a far cry from what posters claimed in the first 30+ pages of this thread, or so. There, they all claimed there were "1000s of witnesses" despite my having refuted that claim six ways to Sunday (and July 4th too!).

So, progress has indeed been made when posters around here realize they have nowhere near the ""1000s of witnesses" that the 9/11 deception otherwise likes to implant into the consciousness of those who are willing to be deceived.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

Hey Lurkers,

We are making progress!

Titanic Explorer says, and I quote:

"...There are scores of accounts of people who heard and saw the planes hit the towers..."

That is a far cry from what posters claimed in the first 30+ pages of this thread, or so. There, they all claimed there were "1000s of witnesses" despite my having refuted that claim six ways to Sunday (and July 4th too!).

So, progress has indeed been made when posters around here realize they have nowhere near the ""1000s of witnesses" that the 9/11 deception otherwise likes to implant into the consciousness of those who are willing to be deceived.

FAIL

Nice try tinfoil hatter.
'Scores' means 'many'.

What progress are you making? making a fool of yourself?

Jammy, have you ever been to New York? I highly doubt it..If you go there, and took a survey of the people who lived in Ny and over in Jersey on 9/11, and asked how many people saw planes hit the towers-the numbers would be staggeringly high. The reason more attention was on the second impact was because all eyes were on the Twin Towers because one of them was in flames...thats a hard thing not to notice..
That is why so many cameras happened to catch the second plane hit the towers...
The number of eye witnesses is indeed in the thousands. Do you have any understanding of the population that that area, not to mention the number of tourists milling about?

 

[TheRedWorm]

...<snip>...

You missed this question in the post you responded to: "What is your proof the planes were holograms?"

Or is that not a legitimate question?

 

[Oystein]

Hey Lurkers,

We are making progress!

Titanic Explorer says, [bla bla bla] likes to implant into the consciousness of those who are willing to be deceived.

You have totally missed what TitanicExplorer REALLY said. I'll repeated it, lest you dodge yet another request to support your theories:

What is your proof the planes were holograms?

 

[jammonius]

The best way to interpret the above photo is as of proof of wrongdoing, either planting or tampering. There are other ways to interpret the photo, but the only reasonable way to interpret it is as evidence of planting/tampering. Do you agree?



In your twisted paranoia laced world view, apparently so - But not in the real world.
You seem to think any photo of people touching airplane debris if of them planting it.
That still is not proof- what you are offering is a paranoid interpretation of photographs. You continue to ignore eye witness testimony of those who saw the planes crash on 9/11.

The above is not refutation. It is an attack, to be sure, but it does not refute the interpretation of the photo evidence. You also fail to provide an alternative explanation of what the information reveals.

Permit me to suggest that the level of conversation would be elevated if you were to focus on the photo and on what it means or does mean, as you see it. If you disagre with me and think my claim is wrong, there are ways to do that within the parameters of reasoned discussion.

However, by choosing to lower your level of dialogue to that of personal insult and invective, a reasonable inference to be drawn is that you either cannot refute reason with reason, do not know how to do so; or, are having an emotional reaction to the fact that something you cherish as a belief has been shown to be false.

Would you please consider elevating the level of your dialogue so as to avoid exposing yourself as being emotionally tapped out?

 

[TJM]

Hey Lurkers,

We are making progress!

Titanic Explorer says, and I quote:

"...There are scores of accounts of people who heard and saw the planes hit the towers..."

That is a far cry from what posters claimed in the first 30+ pages of this thread, or so. There, they all claimed there were "1000s of witnesses" despite my having refuted that claim six ways to Sunday (and July 4th too!).

So, progress has indeed been made when posters around here realize they have nowhere near the ""1000s of witnesses" that the 9/11 deception otherwise likes to implant into the consciousness of those who are willing to be deceived.

I'd be surprised if there wasn't tens of thousands of people who saw it with their own eyes in addition to the millions who saw it on live TV.

 

[jammonius]

You missed this question in the post you responded to: "What is your proof the planes were holograms?"

Or is that not a legitimate question?

Your claim is false.

On holograms:

See post # 1660

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6094947&postcount=1660

I envision a valid and thorough going discussion on holograms and I have pointed to the direction the discussion can take. I don't think this thread is the proper place for a full-on discussion of holograms, as I think that is a separate topic. I do think holograms are related to this thread.

 

[jammonius]

FAIL

Nice try tinfoil hatter.
'Scores' means 'many'.

What progress are you making? making a fool of yourself?

Jammy, have you ever been to New York? I highly doubt it..If you go there, and took a survey of the people who lived in Ny and over in Jersey on 9/11, and asked how many people saw planes hit the towers-the numbers would be staggeringly high. The reason more attention was on the second impact was because all eyes were on the Twin Towers because one of them was in flames...thats a hard thing not to notice..
That is why so many cameras happened to catch the second plane hit the towers...
The number of eye witnesses is indeed in the thousands. Do you have any understanding of the population that that area, not to mention the number of tourists milling about?

Yours is an almost verbatim repitition of claims made early in this thread. My response then was as follows:

Your claim there are "1000s of witnesses' is false. You have not proven your claim. You have not shown a source for '1000s of witnesses'. You will not show such a source because none exists. In fact, as to actual, verifiable and reliable witnesses, the only thing you will be able to show is that the consensus viewpoint on what people actually saw and acually heard was:

an explosion

You have not, cannot and will not prove the claim there are 1000s of witnesses because your claim is false. Your claim is false because 9/11 was a deception centered on the appearance of plane crashes that did not happen.

Unless and until the factor of deception is recognized and dealt with, other and more devastating occurrences centered in high tech deception will happen.