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

[excaza]

The above is a hopeless hodge-podge of assumption-riddled, misplacement and misattribution of fact, of logic, of reasoning, to name some misses.

To begin with, the proposition that is opposite that which you propose is equally valid; namely: If one video is fake, then it calls into question the entire event. More than one video is obviously a fake from among the ALL 43; but, equally important, none of them show a jetliner in a realistic crash into a steel reinforced building: Not one.

Accordingly, there is nothing about the videos of the explosions at the WTC that gives rise to a reasonable assertion that a jetliner was involved.

The above is a hopeless hodge-podge of assumption-riddled, misplacement and misattribution of fact, of logic, of reasoning, to name some misses.

 

[jammonius]

I dispute this.

It is good journalistic practice to substitute pronouns in direct speech with the noun they stand for, put in parentheses, when the noun itself has been introduced in a preceding sentence that is not itself quoted for the sake of brevity.


Example. Suppose, Gene McGillian had said the following, full text:

"...Ok, let's talk about the plane then, the wide-body Boeing-type passenger plane with two engines and commercial markings on it that I saw so very clearly and vividly that I will never forget the sight. I saw it maybe 200 yards before it hit, I saw all kinds of debris and body parts on the ground and on car hoods. You had to move pretty quickly because there were pieces of metal hitting the ground. It was horrible. To think that a plane like this Boeing could have caused so much damage..."

Suppose the journalist did not want to quote the full text, only the part I fornatted in italic. Then you'd have "it" twice, but not the noun "the plane" that the "it" clearly and unambiguously stands for.

The quote "I saw it maybe 200 yards before it hit..." would therefore be correctly expanded to "I saw (the plane) maybe 200 yards before it hit...". The parentheses do not tell you that anything is uncertain. It tells you the journalist is dealing with direct quotes in an honest and professionally valid way.
It would suit you well, jammonius, if you would write in the same spirit of honesty and professionalism.



You see, jammomius, it bears reflecting upon the fact that every single word you find quoted anywhere is "inserted" and "uncertain" as you can never know if it has been invented, altered or whatever. Putting parentheses around a word does not mean it is less certain. It means that the journalist making the quote is very certain of what the "it" means. What you insinuate in your quoted question is misleading and dishonest. Your questions "Do you dispute..." are loaded and vile.


Do better.

Well, Oystein, you shouldn't have

By that, I mean you should not have complimented me by imitating me; and, you should not have chosen to refute the witness statement you have selected. Mind you, your courage in seeking to engage in an attempt at refutation, and then leaving out dumb name-calling, for the most part, was admirable and maybe even courageous on your part. Certainly commendable in comparison with the feeble responses put out by a lot of others.

But, you should have saved yourself the effort; or, perhaps, tried to refute my challenge to a statement other than the one you selected.

OK, so if that's were you want to place emphasis, then that is too bad. Here's why:

It is good journalistic practice to substitute pronouns in direct speech with the noun they stand for, put in parentheses, when the noun itself has been introduced in a preceding sentence that is not itself quoted for the sake of brevity.

The above fails to refute; and, instead, merely confirms why newspapers aren't valid evidence. If a convention allows a newspaper to substitute words and phrases for things actually said, then, by definition, newspaper conventions allow for alteration; and, alteration leads to uncertainty. Therefore, such sources are not reliable as evidence.

Secondly, even if your assertion is accepted as theory, it still fails in the application to this instance as you have not (as yet, at least) shown the existence of a prior sentence in connection with the quoted statement that would permit application of the convention you mention. Mind you, perhaps you can do that. However, as yet you haven't done so.

Therefore, even by your own pronouncement, your attmept at refutation is a failure as things now stand. You simply have not shown the existence of a key condition that allows for the application of the pronoun substitution process you refer to.

Suppose the journalist did not want to quote the full text, only the part I fornatted in italic. Then you'd have "it" twice, but not the noun "the plane" that the "it" clearly and unambiguously stands for.

You are engaging in speculation in asking us to "suppose...this or that". Asking us to engage in a speculative, hypothetical construct does not serve to refute a darn thing. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, Oystein. I told you you were wasting time.

And, speaking of wasting time, your descent into stupid putdowns is duly noted:

It would suit you well, jammonius, if you would write in the same spirit of honesty and professionalism.

sheesh, Oystein.

You see, jammomius, it bears reflecting upon the fact that every single word you find quoted anywhere is "inserted" and "uncertain" as you can never know if it has been invented, altered or whatever. Putting parentheses around a word does not mean it is less certain. It means that the journalist making the quote is very certain of what the "it" means. What you insinuate in your quoted question is misleading and dishonest.

Your quoted claim is just plain wrong as you are making assumptions about the use of pronouns that you have not shown to be applicable as yet.

Your questions "Do you dispute..." are loaded and vile.

The question does put one on the spot, by daring you, so to speak, to engage in refutation, but that, in and of itself, is not loaded. Indeed, you tried to engage in refutation. You acknowledged you were picking up the gauntlet that had been thrown down, as it were, and you went off on your quixotic effort to refute something that was pretty basic. And, you failed.

Do better.

Once, again, thank you for your compliment.

 

[jammonius]

Jam, you make speculation, rationalization and denial an art form. I salute you.

I do no such thing.

 

[332nd]

The above is a hopeless hodge-podge of assumption-riddled, misplacement and misattribution of fact, of logic, of reasoning, to name some misses.

To begin with, the proposition that is opposite that which you propose is equally valid; namely: If one video is fake, then it calls into question the entire event.

No it doesn't. Using that logic, anyone who disagrees with what the video of any event shows would just have to edit some footage in and create their own controversy.

More than one video is obviously a fake from among the ALL 43; but, equally important, none of them show a jetliner in a realistic crash into a steel reinforced building: Not one.

Except for the many that do.

Accordingly, there is nothing about the videos of the explosions at the WTC that gives rise to a reasonable assertion that a jetliner was involved.

Except the videos that show the jetliner crashing into the building.

 

[jammonius]

Wait, so you're saying that when an airline says, "United Airlines has now confirmed that two of its aircraft have crashed. " It really means, "We don't know what happened to our milti-million dollar planes, so we will just say they crashed" ?

WTF are you on?

Not quite. Come on, put your thinking cap on a little tighter, please. You've headed in the right direction by calling attention to the phraseology:

"United Airlines has now confirmed that two of its aircraft have crashed." That language, standing alone, is vague. Here's why:

1--The language begs the question that it does not answer; namely: How and in what manner did it get into a position to confirm that two of its aircraft crashed?

2--Did the FBI tell United to say that?

3--Was the statement a part of the, you guessed it: "EXERCISE"?

4--Which two aircraft?

5--There is a disconnect between that statement and the next part, which merely says that Flight 93 and 175 took off. It doesn't actually say those are the aircraft that crashed, does it? I will here hasten to add that I know you want to believe the two are connected; and, goodness knows you assume the two statements are connected. But, then again, it is necessary for you to do that in order to hold onto the common storyline of 9/11, isn't it?

The remainder of the statement actually says next to nothing at all about Flight 175, does it?

Come on, Triforcharity, you were on the right track, could you but have realized it a little more fully.

Try harder, please.

 

[jammonius]

Seems straight forward enough to me. What do you consider disjointed or weird about the grammar? Given that this was written only hours after the events and when little info was known with 100% accuracy what do think was included or omitted that should not have been?

See post # 3145. Look, I am not seeking to be dogmatic here. If you want to discuss this, fine. I'm willing. I'm merely calling attention to the actual wording.

I think that statement is utterly vague.

 

[332nd]

Not quite. Come on, put your thinking cap on a little tighter, please. You've headed in the right direction by calling attention to the phraseology:

"United Airlines has now confirmed that two of its aircraft have crashed." That language, standing alone, is vague. Here's why:

1--The language begs the question that it does not answer; namely: How and in what manner did it get into a position to confirm that two of its aircraft crashed?

Radar data for one.

2--Did the FBI tell United to say that?

Not to my knowledge. Do you have any evidence that they did?

3--Was the statement a part of the, you guessed it: "EXERCISE"?

Not to my knowledge. Do you have any evidence that it was?

4--Which two aircraft?

The two they could no longer track.

5--There is a disconnect between that statement and the next part, which merely says that Flight 93 and 175 took off. It doesn't actually say those are the aircraft that crashed, does it? I will here hasten to add that I know you want to believe the two are connected; and, goodness knows you assume the two statements are connected. But, then again, it is necessary for you to do that in order to hold onto the common storyline of 9/11, isn't it?

Interesting... so using that logic, which or your "no plane witnesses actually says that "there was no plane"?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Since Jammies got his panties in a bunch, I've got a hunch.

Since Jam claims that there were "no-planes" & that there were "no people onboard" the planes. My conclussion to his fairy tale is this:

1: Jam likes to make up BS.
2: Jam is just supporting a flawed & outdated theory from 2006.
3: Jam is just having a mental breakdown.
4: Jam wants attention.
5: Jam is here to make an ass out of itself.
6: Jam doesn't want evidence that proves it wrong.
7: Jam thinks he knows everything, when he knows nothing.

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

To begin with, the proposition that is opposite that which you propose is equally valid; namely: If one video is fake, then it calls into question the entire event. More than one video is obviously a fake from among the ALL 43; but, equally important, none of them show a jetliner in a realistic crash into a steel reinforced building: Not one.

Accordingly, there is nothing about the videos of the explosions at the WTC that gives rise to a reasonable assertion that a jetliner was involved.

Prove it.

 

[dtugg]

jammy

Edited for breach of Rule 12

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[jammonius]

Radar data for one.

That is weak and unsuppported. What radar data? Source? What does the data you rely on conclude, show or demonstrate? Please specify.

Note, too, that I am here posting on a video the content of which shows the radar data contradict the video and do not show a plane crashing into the South Tower; or, if it does, it does so at an angle and speed not shown in the videos.

See, for example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6185718&postcount=2931

sheesh

Not to my knowledge. Do you have any evidence that they did?

Good question and a fair question. I will get back to you on that. Meanwhile, if you're interested, you can also do your own independent research.

Not to my knowledge. Do you have any evidence that it was?

Likewise a good question and a fair question. I will get back to you on that. Meanwhile, if you're interested, you can also do your own independent research.

The two they could no longer track.

Please source your claim, explain with adequate detail. Thanks.

Interesting... so using that logic, which or your "no plane witnesses actually says that "there was no plane"?

That is a tiresome attempt at analogy. The spontaneous statement of what witnesses saw and heard; or, the recounting of their experience bears little or no resemblance to a carefully worded, word-smithed, vetted, legally approved, etc. corporate statement.

And, in any event, I have posted up the witnesses and their statements. Look at them and if there are those you'd like to quote or post for comment, then do so.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Bolding's mine:

That is weak and unsuppported. What radar data? Source? What does the data you rely on conclude, show or demonstrate? Please specify.

It demonstrates that you're lying or covering up for the terrorist.

Note, too, that I am here posting on a video the content of which shows the radar data contradict the video and do not show a plane crashing into the South Tower; or, if it does, it does so at an angle and speed not shown in the videos.

What does the angle & speed have to do with thousands of New Yorkers witnessing it crash before their eyes?

Good question and a fair question. I will get back to you on that. Meanwhile, if you're interested, you can also do your own independent research.

And yet you haven't come up with an evidence to prove your looney independent research that there were "no-planes" on 9/11.


Please source your claim, explain with adequate detail. Thanks.

You'll just ignore the detail. We know how you act when evidence is presented. Handwave all you like, it's the truth.

That is a tiresome attempt at analogy. The spontaneous statement of what witnesses saw and heard; or, the recounting of their experience bears little or no resemblance to a carefully worded, word-smithed, vetted, legally approved, etc. corporate statement.

Their words say so much about your fairy stories.

And, in any event, I have posted up the witnesses and their statements. Look at them and if there are those you'd like to quote or post for comment, then do so.

We have, you just ignore them or feel that they're "fake". We ain't buying!

 

[Tinfoil Hater]

That is weak and unsuppported. What radar data? Source? What does the data you rely on conclude, show or demonstrate? Please specify.

Note, too, that I am here posting on a video the content of which shows the radar data contradict the video and do not show a plane crashing into the South Tower; or, if it does, it does so at an angle and speed not shown in the videos.

See, for example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6185718&postcount=2931

sheesh



Good question and a fair question. I will get back to you on that. Meanwhile, if you're interested, you can also do your own independent research.



Likewise a good question and a fair question. I will get back to you on that. Meanwhile, if you're interested, you can also do your own independent research.





Please source your claim, explain with adequate detail. Thanks.



That is a tiresome attempt at analogy. The spontaneous statement of what witnesses saw and heard; or, the recounting of their experience bears little or no resemblance to a carefully worded, word-smithed, vetted, legally approved, etc. corporate statement.

And, in any event, I have posted up the witnesses and their statements. Look at them and if there are those you'd like to quote or post for comment, then do so.

Jam, you're a sad clown-Clearly you have severe psychiatric issues. Have you ever been institutionalized? You have not proven a single one of your crackpot theories. You reject logic and engage in endless circular arguments, and have exhibited a number of traits indicative of a person with severe mental illness. You still dodge the question what you think happened to the people who were on the planes. This freak show has gone on long enough. You are insulting the memories of those who were on the planes and were murdered on 9/11. Clearly a nutcase like you is unable to feel emotions for others, but just bloody try.

I challenge you, I dare you to tell me what happened to Betty Ong and Ed Felt. Spare me your pathetic sidestep that you already answered it-

I'm asking you directly you , where are they?

Answer that! If you sidestep that question again it will reveal your cowardice.

Your answer does not need to be yet another tiresome rambling diatribe of paranoia. In a sentense of two, try to get your diseased, quivering brain to come up with an answer to what happened Betty Ong and Ed Felt ?

 

[332nd]

​

That is weak and unsuppported. What radar data? Source? What does the data you rely on conclude, show or demonstrate? Please specify.

Note, too, that I am here posting on a video the content of which shows the radar data contradict the video and do not show a plane crashing into the South Tower; or, if it does, it does so at an angle and speed not shown in the videos.

See, for example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6185718&postcount=2931

sheesh

A poor attempt at hand waving. You have been shown the data in this very thread and chose to ignore it. The radar data stands.

Good question and a fair question. I will get back to you on that. Meanwhile, if you're interested, you can also do your own independent research.

I'll wait.

Likewise a good question and a fair question. I will get back to you on that. Meanwhile, if you're interested, you can also do your own independent research.

I'll wait.

Please source your claim, explain with adequate detail. Thanks.

Flight Path Study- United Airlines Flight 175 by the NTSB.

That is a tiresome attempt at analogy. The spontaneous statement of what witnesses saw and heard; or, the recounting of their experience bears little or no resemblance to a carefully worded, word-smithed, vetted, legally approved, etc. corporate statement.

And, in any event, I have posted up the witnesses and their statements. Look at them and if there are those you'd like to quote or post for comment, then do so.

But I'm just using your logic. Therefore, any "no plane" witness who is not quoted as saying that there was no plane is discounted.

 

[fess]

That is weak and unsuppported. What radar data? Source? What does the data you rely on conclude, show or demonstrate? Please specify.

How many more times do we have to post the radar tracking for these aircraft?

Note, too, that I am here posting on a video the content of which shows the radar data contradict the video and do not show a plane crashing into the South Tower; or, if it does, it does so at an angle and speed not shown in the videos.

See, for example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6185718&postcount=2931

sheesh

Please tell me that you are not still relying on that idiotic video to back up your claims. I would hope that your level of intelligence would help you realize that the producer of this video has less flying experience than you do.

 

[triforcharity]

Not quite. Come on, put your thinking cap on a little tighter, please. You've headed in the right direction by calling attention to the phraseology:

"United Airlines has now confirmed that two of its aircraft have crashed." That language, standing alone, is vague. Here's why:

1--The language begs the question that it does not answer; namely: How and in what manner did it get into a position to confirm that two of its aircraft crashed?

2--Did the FBI tell United to say that?

3--Was the statement a part of the, you guessed it: "EXERCISE"?

4--Which two aircraft?

5--There is a disconnect between that statement and the next part, which merely says that Flight 93 and 175 took off. It doesn't actually say those are the aircraft that crashed, does it? I will here hasten to add that I know you want to believe the two are connected; and, goodness knows you assume the two statements are connected. But, then again, it is necessary for you to do that in order to hold onto the common storyline of 9/11, isn't it?

The remainder of the statement actually says next to nothing at all about Flight 175, does it?

Come on, Triforcharity, you were on the right track, could you but have realized it a little more fully.

Try harder, please.

No, it's useless. Aparently when someone says "Airplanes crashed" it really means something else.

I say this with every fiber of my being.....you're idea of reality is so far ****** up that yo don't even know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Please, for the sake of humanity, delete your account, and cancel your internet.

 

[triforcharity]

Since Jammies got his panties in a bunch, I've got a hunch.

Since Jam claims that there were "no-planes" & that there were "no people onboard" the planes. My conclussion to his fairy tale is this:

1: Jam likes to make up BS.
2: Jam is just supporting a flawed & outdated theory from 2006.
3: Jam is just having a mental breakdown.
4: Jam wants attention.
5: Jam is here to make an ass out of itself.
6: Jam doesn't want evidence that proves it wrong.
7: Jam thinks he knows everything, when he knows nothing.

Yes.

 

[fess]

Jammy;
I am really getting concerned. Several times I have asked if you have gotten your tickets yet, and you have provided no answer. I have even offered to help if i can. However, if you indeed are on a no-fly list, there is not much I can do. If you are not going to come over and visit, please let us know so we can cancel our plans we made for you.

 

[jammonius]

Rebuttal of Post # 1368 Completed! Only 6 viable witnesses.

Post # 1368 Ongoing Refutation 6/82
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1368

Set out below are the final 17 witnesses claimed by Carlitos as having seen a plane hit the South Tower. The total number claimed by Carlitos was 82 witnesses, of which a mere 6 are legally valid as witnesses.

The known number of valid NO PLANE witnesses far exceeds that number. Accordingly, the claim that there are "1000s of witnesses" has not been proven; and, indeed, the claim of witnesses, based on Carlitos effort, has not even reached double figures and has barely reached a handful.

That is downright pitiful.

You folks who insist on clinging to the common storyline of 9/11 are in dire straits.

Oh well, as I have repeatedly said, you may continue to believe the common storyline of 9/11 for as long as you can.

However, as far as a jet hitting the South Tower, you have precious few witnesses to go on.

Too bad.

Here, then, is the conclusion of the refutation of Carlitos' witness claims set out in post # 1368.

It has been a pleasure to have engaged in this process of reveiw and assessement:

Steven Schiraldi
Steven Schiraldi, a Wall Street financial manager, was reached by phone in New York moments after the second tower of the World Trade Center was hit by a plane.
"I saw the second plane fly right past my window," he said.
Then he cut the conversation short with the comment: "I have to go now. They told us to evacuate the building. There is complete chaos here."
Later he told Catholic News Service that after he saw the plane fly past his office window, he watched it crash into the trade center. "It disintegrated on impact. My heart was pounding. I've never been so scared in my life."
His office building is about a half mile from the World Trade Center, and once he was evacuated he couldn't breathe from all the soot outside. All around him people were "screaming, crying and praying," he said.
http://www.archden.org/dcr/archive/2...01091906wn.htm


Blatant hearsay, invalidly sourced.

Keith Schwer
Exiting the hotel within minutes, Schwer emerged to the heart of a chaotic scene—and thankfully was not struck or injured by falling debris. But once he saw the tail of the plane jutting out from the burning building, he realized this was not an explosion or an earthquake; it was an attack—and one that wasn’t over yet.
"We walked toward the Hudson River, so I saw the second plane coming down the river. It was so strange—I saw the plane bank, then I heard it coming and I saw that it was headed for the South Tower. I saw it go into the building."
http://system.nevada.edu/News/Public...1/rr_oct01.pdf

More hearsay, more invalid sources and another dead link to boot.

Ken Siebert
Ken Siebert, who works at 195 Broadway, also not far from the World Trade Center, said he had come out of the Church Street subway station as the second plane approached the center.
"I saw the plane bank and turn," Mr. Siebert said. "He turned, definitely turned, and banked it in there."
To Mr. Siebert, such movements indicated to him that terrorists were piloting the aircraft.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2001/09/12/myork_ed3_.php


To my knowledge, the NYC Subway system does not list a station by the name of "Church Street subway station" thus the location that Ken Siebert alleges cannot be verified solely on the basis of the statement attributed to him. I am not here saying he therefore did not see "zee plane" but I am simply calling attention to a factor that makes the statement unreliable.
To be fair, the NYC subway system does list the "Chambers Street station as being at Church Street.

See: http://www.mta.info/nyct/service/cline.htm

However, if this person was at or near Church and Chambers, then this person was not in a location where zee plane is claimed to have been.

This is yet another reason why hearsay sources are unreliable.

So far in this segment, Carlitos is clearly O/fer.



Mitchell Simmons

Mitchell Simmons was in his lower-midtown Manhattan office Tuesday morning when a co-worker said, "You should see this, a plane just flew into the World Trade Center." Simmons, spokesman for e-mail list company 24/7 Media, joined staffers in CEO Dave Moore's 28th floor office, which had a clear view of the Trade Center.
"At that point, we thought it was an accident," Simmons said. "There were no news accounts yet."
Simmons added, "As we watched the building burn, we saw the second plane come around. It was very surreal because it felt like a movie, but it was reality."
As they watched the plane slam into the second tower, co-workers cried out in horror. "We knew then they were very deliberate attacks."
http://directmag.com/news/marketing_...itness_history

The above is hearsay on top of hearsay. Not only that, the source seems to be akin to Pennysaver and may even be Pennysaver.

double sheesh

EMS CAPTAIN MARK STONE
We got in the truck, listening to reports coming in on Citywide and we ended up taking the Battery Park Tunnel underneath to come up on the West Street side of the incident. We came up right out of the tunnel. I was looking up to see if I could do a little more initial size up. That is when I saw the second plane hit the building. I just watched it coming in.
I see that the plane hit and I'm really thinking for the safety of the members that we got operating already ...
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110076.PDF


This witness statement is validly sourced, coming from the Task Force Witness statement collection. The witness' statement is valid in all respects except that he does not describe hearing anything or being overwhelmed by a full throttle jet, merely 800ft above his head. However, this one will count as a valid witness. Carlitos was on the verge of having no more than a handful of witnesses. However, that bullet has been dodged because this one makes 6.


FIREFIGHTER JOSEPH SULLIVAN

Okay. We responded from quarters. The ticket came in at 8:54. We were going on the first alarm to the staging area by the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. En route to the staging area, we were going down Columbia Street, saw the second plane strike the building and we went from being a, quote, good job or a rough job, or we were going to earn our money today.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110286.PDF

While validly sourced, this statement is not a viable witness. He was too far away and this is another of that special series of statements that results in an automatic disqualification: "we saw". In addition, and while not quoted above, the broader context makes it clear this witness did not know what he had seen. Here is the part of his statement:


"Some of the guys put it, to -- started
realizing that it was a terrorist incident, that we
were -- you know, we were in for more than we thought
originally."

In other words, he didn't realize what had happened and does not say he did. Rather, he attributes information to "some of the guys".

Clearly, this witness does not count.


Maciej Swulinski

At this moment hearing a coming sound I raised my head. No! This is not happening. A big passenger jet was right above me. It was a blink of an eye. A fraction of second later the airplane disappeared inside WTC tower. I was standing at the base of the building that was the target of terrorist attack. There was no place take the cover. It was to late to run away. All I could do was just to cover my head with my bare hands and wait for the miracle. Parts of the building and from the airplane were falling on the street around me.
http://www.swulinski.com/9-11/My911.html

The above is sourced to a stupid debunker website and obviously does not count.

Joe Trachtenberg

Witness Joe Trachtenberg saw both attacks from a high-rise block on the other side of Manhattan. He said: "The first tower was smoking hard. Then there was another plane, and before we knew, it went kamikaze and flew straight into the other tower.
"There was a mass explosion, and windows flying. It was horrible."
Daily Star, September 12, 2001

The above is sourced, but not linked, to the Daily Star. Needless to say, it does not count.

Denise Weiss (audio interview)

Denise Weiss was at her school -- located near the World Trade Center -- when suddenly the students were asked to evacuate. She saw the north tower in flames and an airliner slam into the south tower.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...t(afc911000117))

The above is sourced to what might be a valid source, if it can be opened. I couldn'topen it. However, the content is hearsay nonetheless and does not count.

Tom Weber

So I'm sitting there, on the 39th floor, and we're used to plane traffic, the sounds of planes are very familiar, but I heard a much louder sound, a sound closer in proximity than I've ever heard before which caused me to look up in the direction of that sound. I saw a commercial airliner which appeared to be banking to the east just go what appeared to be right through the WTC causing an explosion on one end and an explosion on the other end...
...came back to the window and I saw the second plane, and I never gave the second plane any credibility because there couldn't be another plane flying into the World Trade Center because that's impossible, almost impossible as the first one. And it was flying south. It wasn't as direct a hit as the first plane was. It kind of hit like the edge of the building, but the explosion was way worse than the first one. The first explosion wasn't...as a matther of fact, the first plane didn't have as big an explosion as the second. The second hit and our building shook.
http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_tra...witnesses.html

The above does not count as a witness statement based on the source. But, the above is interesting in its own right in that the witness is one of the very few that bases his observation largely on what he claims to have heard.

Peter YBarra

"It was the worst thing I've ever seen in my entire life, said Peter Ybarra, a 40-year-old civil servant who saw the second plane crash into the World Trade Center. "Those movies about Pearl Harbor, they were never real to me. I wish God had taken away my eyesight before this happened.
http://www.sfgate.com/today/0912_chron_nyscene.shtml

BS hearsay.

Tonya Young

...suddenly I heard an airplane.
I turned and saw a plane coming at an angle from the direction of the Statue of Liberty. It was low and a little to the right of where I was standing, but almost directly overhead. I followed it until I saw it go into the second tower.
September 11: An Oral History, Dean E. Murphy

More BS hearsay

FIREFIGHTER STEPHEN ZASA

Upon that time I heard a plane roar. I had my window down and on my side we saw a plane flying very low come right across us and with a loud, you know, the engines revved up, and I had mentioned to him, I had no idea that it was heading towards that way, and I just said like where is this guy going, you know, he was extremely low, not realizing it was another plane heading towards the World Trade, and we saw it struck the building, we saw a big mushroom of flame, of fire coming up, and it was like disbelief, and he had gotten on the radio and notified the dispatcher another plane had struck the World Trade Center.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110417.PDF

This witness is validly sourced. The broader context makes it clear that as to the North Tower, there was no indication a plane had hit it. He was situated so as to be looking at the hole in the North Tower. That location tells us he could not have seen a plane hit the South Tower. He only saw a fireball and that is what he actually says, in an around about way.

This is not a valid witness to a plane hitting the South Tower.

Rick Zottola

We were just about two minutes away from [the] South Tower and about to go up to our office when we heard this roar overhead; we looked up and there it was, flying low over the city.
The second plane impacted the South Tower while we watched and the explosion spat fire out into the air. We watched the whole thing, completely dumbfounded.
Tower Stories: An Oral History Of 9/11, Damon DiMarco
Invalid, hearsay source.

Unnamed SeaStreak captain

SeaStreak, another high-speed ferry operator between the Atlantic Highlands and Manhattan, also found its vessels located close by to provide almost immediate evacuation assistance. By 0840, the catamaran ferry SeaStreak New York had almost completed its run to New York and was heading up the East River. As it passed Pier 16 on the East River, the captain radioed the home office, "that he saw a plane hit the WTC. He continued up to East 34th Street, did the drop off and pick up, and while on the way back, again near Pier 16, he saw the second plane hit the other tower," said Joanne Conroy, marketing director of SeaStreak.
http://www.fireboat.org/press/prof_mariner_jan02_1.asp

Obviously invalid. The source is bogus and the person is not even named.

Unnamed

Early this morning around 9 am, I heard the sound of a low flying airplane. It was so loud my immediate thought was that it was a terrorist or a plane that would land on our rooftop in Greenwich Village. Seconds later I knew the horrible truth...
http://www.readio.com/archives/0109/...yclickers.html

Carlitos, you should not have included this unnamed person, from an unreliable source.

Unnamed

As I'm flying closer, almost opposite the WTC, right next to the Harborside Center in Jersey City, I see this airliner coming down in a steep bank, my first thought was, WTF is this guy doing!??? Why is he diving so steep to take a look at the fire! And it's an airliner! (looked like a 737 to me at the time). I muttered something along the lines "Jeez, this guy is gonna get so fired by his airline, it's not even funny!" The next moment.... it hits the building.... I felt like I was inside a cartoon or a movie, maybe that "Independence Day" flick, at the moment I thought I was seeing things, like this can't be, this isn't real... But I had my camera in hand and snapped virtually a split second later after the impact, I was simply too awestruck when I saw the plane, so it didn't click in me to actually shoot the thing (but if I had a Stinger SAM with me, damn, I wish I did and I would).
http://www.maxho.com/wtc

Yet another invalid, unnamed, improperly sourced claim. This does not count.

Well, posters, lurkers and victims' family members, post # 1368 has now been fully assessed and the number of valid witness reports it contains is only 6 out of the 82. Admittedly, along the way, I know I set aside a few as being marginally acceptable and I said I
would consider counting them at the end.

Well, I've considered it and I will not count anymore than the total of 6 that are validly sourced, from a person properly placed and whose statement is clear.

I will not count anymore than that because there is a factor to be considered for all of the PLANE SPOTTERS. Virtually all statements, even the valid ones, were given at least a few weeks, usually a month or more after the event. That means they are already benefiting from the massive psyop that served to reinforce the common storyline and therefore taint people's memory. So, for that reason, I am not going to count any of the marginal statements.

Carlitos, you are stuck with a mere 6.

Carlitos has therefore failed to establish that there are even 10 valid witnesses. Nonetheless, Carlitos is to be commended for trying to show there are witnesses. The truth of the matter is that like every other aspect of the common storyline of 9/11, once you look at whatever claim or aspect of the story it might be, it fails the test of viability, upon analysis.

The common storyline of 9/11 is an illusion. This process of showing you exactly what is attributed to witnesses confirms that the "1000s of witnesses" claim is illusory and demonstrably false.

Carlitos, thank you for your efforts. You have contributed to the knowledge base of this thread.

all the best

 

[dtugg]