Split From Kamikaze Attacks and the Effect of Speed

[Scott Sommers]

You have to admit, he posts the best pics of anybody. Too bad he doesn't realize that his pictures don't demonstrate any of things he thinks they demonstrate.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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

Might be because they had a job to do........

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 it is more "up" to them than for folks closer, hard on the neck staring straight up all the time.....

Did you somehow miss the multiple High definition TV and Tourist videos? Are you saying that all the people who saw them hit are lying????

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

Link please.........

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.

What technology allows for the projection of a 3D image into clear sky?????
(hint: None). The guy is one of the very few to narrowly escape with his life and you think he proves that a plane didn't hit?? He remembers only snapshots of the experience (common enough, and happened in other 911 witnesses like Penny Elgas at the pentagon) and his mind fills in the rest the best it can. The Human memory is not a video recorder, recording what he sees, it records what he thinks he saw and fill in the gaps. That why when you have high def video recording and an eye witness you ALWAYS go with the high def video. how how they could have been faked and by whom?

 

[MG1962]

I am trying so hard to get this, but the pieces just wont fall into place. It would seem the US has developed a whole new range of weapons. Convincing realtime 3D projections. A space based energy weapon, even possibly some HARRP technology

And what is all this technology used for. Bomb their own country and enslave the people. Okay this seems very short sighted to me. If the neocons want to enslave people, why not the whole world

First to go is the presidental complex in North Korea. China is going have something say. But the obvious response is - shut ya yap and welcome to the NWO - USA (copywrite pending)

A few hours later, the top 1000 feet of Tora Bora vaporise taking Bin Laden and his chums with it. A quick stop in Iraq to clean up Saddams latest summer palace.

And just to prove the point, a Columbian drug cartel's depot is destroyed.

In 24 hours the US has just conquered the whole world. What do they do instead. Destroy two under realised skyscrapers in their own country

Am I being over cynical here, or is there something I am just missing?

 

[jammonius]

Quotes within quotes and all those pics make it very hard to respond with your text in place, so I'll try to do it in order.

Pic 1 - Draw an imaginary line between the towers, using the southern border of WTC1 and northern border of WTC2. Extend that across the Hudson. That's where I was.

Pic 2 - No. You don't know Manhattan, I take it. That pic is from roughly SSW - perhaps from the are of the Staten Island Ferry crossing. You can see the fireboat station and Battery Park. Go straight from the cameraman's vantage point to the towers then take a sharp left to get to where I was.

Pic 3. No. First - that pic is shot from 3 to 5 blocks inland - look at the amount of land on the NJ side it shows. We were right at the water's edge. And we were about1/3 to 1/2 of a mile north of that location.

Pic of plane. That pic looks like it was from the Hoboken footage. Maybe Weehawken? A minimum of 3, maybe 4 miles north of my location looking down on an angle toward the WTC. I was much closer. And remember that it was a clear day, as almost all reports say, perhaps the clearest in recent memory.

Put a big ol' honking 767 in that picture with the Colgate clock and move four blocks closer to the river, and you get an idea of how it appeared in our field of vision that morning.

"It" was the plane. "It" is a pronoun. Its antecedent is in the previous line.

I didn't recognize it as a 767 - I'm not that good at plane spotting. I did recognize it as a big ol' humping jet passenger plane, though.

As to the timing, I'd love to say I could be precise, but that morning consists of a lot of pregnant pauses, much like Eisenstein's Odessa Steps sequence. Could've been a total of ten seconds from first earfall to impact, could've been twenty to twenty-five, I just don't know.


Hope this helps. Bring along any of those other witnesses who have varying interpretations. Were they really in as good a position as I was? Again, imagine yourself twenty stories up, right around the distance of that Colgate Clocki from the WTC, and remember that the plane came from our side of the river.

Greetings again, foolmewunz


As before, your quoted reply is much appreciated. It helps a great deal. You are an impressive witness and your account of what happened needs to be preserved for posterity, imho.

It appears to me you are open to dialogue with me. You ask:

Hope this helps. Bring along any of those other witnesses who have varying interpretations. Were they really in as good a position as I was? Again, imagine yourself twenty stories up, right around the distance of that Colgate Clocki from the WTC, and remember that the plane came from our side of the river.

I will start this response with the known statement of Asst. Commissioner Stephen Gregory. He may have been the highest ranking fire fighter on duty on 9/11. He established a field headquarters between "Liberty and Albany on the west side of West Street."

He stated as follows:

"A. I never actually saw the plane, but l heard it. You could hear it coming in and then we heard the explosion and you could hear the roar of the plane coming in. At first I didn't realize it was a plane.
I thought it was like the roar of fire, like something had just incinerated, like a gas tank or an oil tank.
It sounded like a tremendous roar and then you heard boom and then there was a big fire, a lot of fire, a big fireball. I never actually saw a plane hit the building. I never saw that. I saw it on television, but I never saw it while I was standing there."
pg 21

His statement is found in alphabetical order at:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

I have posted his statement before and some posters here have placed emphasis on certain parts of it that they claim supports that a jetliner hit the WTC. I place emphasis on the following parts of his quoted statement:

I never actually saw the plane,

I emphasize the above part.


...but l heard it.

Other posters emphasize the part quoted above. However, as to that part, I think he makes clear in his subsequent statement that he did not believe what he heard was consistent with a plane.

That is how I interpret the following part:

You could hear it coming in and then we heard the explosion and you could hear the roar of the plane coming in. At first I didn't realize it was a plane. I thought it was like the roar of fire, like something had just incinerated, like a gas tank or an oil tank.

I have underlined the part that I think negates his claim he heard a plane. I am not saying you or anyone else has to agree with me; rather, I am merely giving you my reasons.

One other interesting thing about Asst. Commissioner Gregory is that there was something else he had to say about 9/11, but, unfortunately, we are not allowed to know what that is:

That redaction continues for another couple of full pages.

Another interesting witness situation involves two firefighters standing right next to one another where one claims he sees a plane and the other disputes the claim. So, unlike your building, not everyone who was right in front agreed with one another:

"Engine 3 drove south to the south pedestrian bridge to make a U turn to come back and as I'm walking towards the Engine to find out what Lieutenant Walsh wanted us to do, I heard the sound of a jet plane. I looked up and saw it pretty close and I was like holy ****. What's going on with the with the flight patterns. All of a sudden, the wings turned and it dove right into the building and it was screwed up. At that time Chief Ganciwas behind me and he thought there was another explosion in the north tower and that's when I turned around and said Chief, listen, there is a second plane that hit the other tower. He was like no no no no, we have another explosion. I said no, Chief, I witnessed it. I watched the plane hit the other tower. He is like are you sure. I said Chief, I'm 100 hundred percent positive I watched the second plane hit the other tower."

The above is the account of Scott Holowach, pg. 3-4

So, I have underlined the part showing two people standing next to one another and one sees a plane and the other says no no no no. By the way and, unfortunately, Chief Ganci did not survive 9/11 he was one of those who was killed.

Among the oral histories, there are quite a few more who see no plane who were right in front of the scene. And, to be sure, there are others like Scott Holowach who claim to have seen something. Some say small plane, some say cargo plane, some say military plane, some say missile, etc.

 

[beachnut]

Greetings again, foolmewunz


As before, your quoted reply is much appreciated. It helps a great deal. You are an impressive witness and your account of what happened needs to be preserved for posterity, imho.

It appears to me you are open to dialogue with me. You ask:



I will start this response with the known statement of Asst. Commissioner Stephen Gregory. He may have been the highest ranking fire fighter on duty on 9/11. He established a field headquarters between "Liberty and Albany on the west side of West Street."

He stated as follows:

"A. I never actually saw the plane, but l heard it. You could hear it coming in and then we heard the explosion and you could hear the roar of the plane coming in. At first I didn't realize it was a plane.
I thought it was like the roar of fire, like something had just incinerated, like a gas tank or an oil tank.
It sounded like a tremendous roar and then you heard boom and then there was a big fire, a lot of fire, a big fireball. I never actually saw a plane hit the building. I never saw that. I saw it on television, but I never saw it while I was standing there."
pg 21

His statement is found in alphabetical order at:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

I have posted his statement before and some posters here have placed emphasis on certain parts of it that they claim supports that a jetliner hit the WTC. I place emphasis on the following parts of his quoted statement:

I never actually saw the plane,

I emphasize the above part.


...but l heard it.

Other posters emphasize the part quoted above. However, as to that part, I think he makes clear in his subsequent statement that he did not believe what he heard was consistent with a plane.

That is how I interpret the following part:

You could hear it coming in and then we heard the explosion and you could hear the roar of the plane coming in. At first I didn't realize it was a plane.
I thought it was like the roar of fire, like something had just incinerated, like a gas tank or an oil tank.

I have underlined the part that I think negates his claim he heard a plane. I am not saying you or anyone else has to agree with me; rather, I am merely giving you my reasons.

One other interesting thing about Asst. Commissioner Gregory is that there was something else he had to say about 9/11, but, unfortunately, we are not allowed to know what that is:

Another interesting witness situation involves two firefighters standing right next to one another where one claims he sees a plane and the other disputes the claim. So, unlike your building, not everyone who was right in front agreed with one another:

"Engine 3 drove south to the south pedestrian bridge to make a U turn to come back and as I'm walking towards the Engine to find out what Lieutenant Walsh wanted us to do, I heard the sound of a jet plane. I looked up and saw it pretty close and I was like holy ****. What's going on with the with the flight patterns. All of a sudden, the wings turned and it dove right into the building and it was screwed up. At that time Chief Ganciwas behind me and he thought there was another explosion in the north tower and that's when I turned around and said Chief, listen, there is a second plane that hit the other tower. He was like no no no no, we have another explosion. I said no, Chief, I witnessed it. I watched the plane hit the other tower. He is like are you sure. I said Chief, I'm 100 hundred percent positive I watched the second plane hit the other tower."

The above is the account of Scott Holowach, pg. 3-4

So, two people standing next to one another and one sees a plane and the other says no no no no.

Among the oral histories, there are quite a few more who see no plane who were right in front of the scene. And, to be sure, there are others like Scott Holowach who claim to have seen something. Some say small plane, some say cargo plane, some say military plane, some say missile, etc.

SPAM, did you get banned for spamming the other place with the jet engines are wheel-covers delusion?

I personally communicated with a person who saw 175 impact, he said it was United! He was right; your SPAM is wrong. But for someone with delusions of wheel-covers, you are posting evidence, but you can't comprehend it.

You are now twisting eye witnesses to make your idiotic delusions of wheel-covers come true in your own mind. You are spreading lies. Not very good at it.

 

[beachnut]

Well, since you appear to have taken exception to my calling what you call the "767" a "shadow thingy" permit me to give you my reasons for calling it as I do. Mind you, as you were an eyewitness and as I was not, your experience trumps mine in that yours is more direct.
...

RADAR tracked Flight 175 from takeoff to impact at the WTC. So this photo is a 767, and it is Flight 175. You have no evidence, only deluions of wheel-covers when you see jet engine parts. Why do you insist on spreading lies?

Flight 175 verified by RADAR impacts the WTC. You posted visual proof of the event and can't figure it out. Add photo interpretation with the aid of RADAR to your list of failed skills.

You believe the idiotic idea steel was disassociated with a beam weapon on 911; pure insanity based on incredible nonsense. A no plane wheel-cover delusion believer in a physics thread, spewing nonsense.

 

[I Ratant]

More holographic projections:

 

[twinstead]

wow. The NWO's technology ROCKS!

 

[sylvan8798]

Among the oral histories, there are quite a few more who see no plane who were right in front of the scene. And, to be sure, there are others like Scott Holowach who claim to have seen something. Some say small plane, some say cargo plane, some say military plane, some say missile, etc.

You seem to think the people who didn't see the plane and those who did contradict each other - maybe cancel each other out? In reality, unless you can prove that they were each looking at the same space, and some claimed to see a plane and others didn't - while looking at the same space at the same time - the fact that they don't have the same story is irrelevant.

A reasonable person would not expect that the first responders were all looking up at the buildings. In fact, a reasonable person might expect that some of them were looking at their supervisors for orders, grabbing equipment, looking at the street so they could run down it, trying to get onlookers back to safer areas, or that their views were blocked by the rest of the skyscrapers of lower Manhattan, and so on. Their jobs, eh?

As for the ones who thought the plane was smaller, or something else, they were just wrong. It happens all the time. Something happened which they saw for a matter of a few seconds, and which was nothing like anything they had ever experienced prior to that. There was a lot of confusion, shock, and panic. Ultimately, the rest of the evidence indicated that Flight 175 flew into the south face of WTC 2 on 9/11/2010, circa 9:03 am, est.

You go to extremes to parse the words of every witness so that you can dig out your particular delusion. That should tell you something.

 

[twinstead]

So is Jammonius saying that all he has to do is find a few people who didn't see a plane, and that means that all the other eye witnesses and physical evidence isn't valid? What kind of idiotic investigator does that?

 

[DGM]

What kind of idiotic investigator does that?

Is that a rhetorical question? Does CIT ring a bell?

 

[twinstead]

Is that a rhetorical question? Does CIT ring a bell?

Yup. About as rhetorical as you can get.

 

[BigAl]

So is Jammonius saying that all he has to do is find a few people who didn't see a plane, and that means that all the other eye witnesses and physical evidence isn't valid? What kind of idiotic investigator does that?

Just for starters, everyone locate north of the WTC plaza had the approaching Flight 11 was visually masked by the towers.

Anyone standing on the north side of any of the other buildings missed it.

Very few people that were indoors saw it. Some with windows on the south side did.

Jammonius needs mental help.






.

 

[Jackanory]

So is Jammonius saying that all he has to do is find a few people who didn't see a plane, and that means that all the other eye witnesses and physical evidence isn't valid? What kind of idiotic investigator does that?

One that promotes DEW but the planes get in the way

 

[Foolmewunz]

Jammonius,
The difference between your quoted version of the event and my version is that I saw the plane. He clearly says he didn't see it but heard it. He sounds fairly intelligent. Accept that it was not, for one reason or another, in his field of vision. But he heard it.

That's all he's saying. He is not saying, that he's a logical positivist and that therefore it didn't exist. If someone asks me about the car crash in front of my building last Saturday, I'd comment, "I heard it, but I didn't see the taxi hit the bus." Why? Am I doubting that there was a taxi? A bus? That they collided? No. I'm just stating my own involvement which was that I heard the honking of a horn for five or six seconds, the screech of brakes locking up, and then a crash. In the aftermath, with mangled vehicles, traffic tied up for two hours, EMS wagons, etc... I have no reason to doubt that. Now you may come along and show that it was a subway train that I heard, but you're going to have that extraordinary burden of bringing extraordinary proof because that's a rather extraordinary claim.

 

[X]

Actually, there is an abrasive involved in water jet cutting. Still....

Hans

Not always.
Where I work (started just over a month ago, YAY for finally having a real engineering-type job!) we have a water jet cutter.
It is used to cut FRP parts, and does not use abrasives.
Just pressure. Lots of it. 60 kpsi.

Now, for steel, you often do get abrasives involved. But it's not a given. Especially if your dealing with non-metallic substances.





I think this thread should be closed. For Jammonius' health, if nothing else. He needs help, and he's not going to get it if people keep badgering him. I have thing I could say to him, but for that reason, I will not.

 

[I Ratant]

Couple more of the second plane from more vantage points..

 

[BigAl]

I think this thread should be closed. For Jammonius' health, if nothing else.

If only to avoid causing him a lifetime of suffering from carpal-tunnel syndrome by calling him out for his claims.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I really don't understand jammonius's repeated and utterly retarded point that "people closest to the scene didn't see a plane."

Most likely that would be because they were facing the towers and, as someone else said, concentration on their job. Now, in most cases, being so close to the tower causes it to be a rather large obstruction preventing a person from witnessing the approaching plane. For those on the side of the approach, they would have had their back to the incoming plane.

Of course they wouldn't see it.