| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kbo234
Validated Poster
Joined: 10 Dec 2005
Posts: 2017
Location: Croydon, Surrey
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 1:56 pm Post subject: Re: Eyewitnesses: Not Commercial Airlines |
 |
|
You seem to be under the misapprehension they were interested in finding out the truth 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flamesong
Major Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kbo234 wrote: | | The 9/11 Commission didn't dig out these witnesses and put them on the stand. |
As I know that the first part of this clip is from the original In Plane Site and edited from subsequent releases because it was all part of the 'missile pod' nonsense - I strongly suspect that the rest of it was too. I don't intend to watch In Plane Site again just to verify this (especially as I only have a VHS copy and I don't have a television) but the opening sequence with Dave von Kleist with the 'missile pod' shot in the background strongly suggests this.
However, point by point, witness by witness:
The first 'witness' says, off camera, 'That was not American Airlines. That was not American Airlines'. Firstly, we don't see the 'witness'. Secondly, why would she make such a statement? The inference of her question could easily be that it was any one of dozens of other airlines.
The second witness states, 'The explosion was so terrific it looked like it had dynamite in it. The ball of fire that came out of that one was even worse than the first one'. Hardly an expert, or even reliable, witness. Dynamite would not have caused a 'ball of fire' that he (and we) saw. He goes on, 'The plane was no airliner or anything, it was twin engined, big grey plane'. We all know that there are no twin engined, big grey planes in commercial service, right! 
Our last witness, Fox employee (not a journalist otherwise he would have been introduced as such) says, '...there was definitely a blue logo with like a circular logo on the front of the plane, towards the front. It definitely did not look like a commercial plane, I didn't see any windows on the sides'.
Of the three, this is the only one with any credibility. I'm sure this witness is very sincere about what he claims to have seen. I'd like to suggest that evidence to counter his statement is largely circumstantial. If he was close enough to see a logo clearly enough to identify it as being circular and see windows, in the midst of the drama of the moment he may have been confused. It cannot be seen from this clip to which aircraft he refers but both American Airlines and United Airlines have blue in their logos and in a blur as they passed it is conceivable that they could have been perceived as circular. Aircraft windows are, by functionial requirement, particularly small and probably the last detail one would pay attention to - so it is very credibly true that he did not see any windows.
My other main reason for thinking this is that if the perpetrators were going to go to the trouble of painting a logo on the front of the plane they would have surely made it look like one or other of the airlines which they were substituting.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flamesong wrote: | | kbo234 wrote: | | The 9/11 Commission didn't dig out these witnesses and put them on the stand. |
As I know that the first part of this clip is from the original In Plane Site and edited from subsequent releases because it was all part of the 'missile pod' nonsense - I strongly suspect that the rest of it was too. I don't intend to watch In Plane Site again just to verify this (especially as I only have a VHS copy and I don't have a television) but the opening sequence with Dave von Kleist with the 'missile pod' shot in the background strongly suggests this.
However, point by point, witness by witness:
The first 'witness' says, off camera, 'That was not American Airlines. That was not American Airlines'. Firstly, we don't see the 'witness'. Secondly, why would she make such a statement? The inference of her question could easily be that it was any one of dozens of other airlines.
The second witness states, 'The explosion was so terrific it looked like it had dynamite in it. The ball of fire that came out of that one was even worse than the first one'. Hardly an expert, or even reliable, witness. Dynamite would not have caused a 'ball of fire' that he (and we) saw. He goes on, 'The plane was no airliner or anything, it was twin engined, big grey plane'. We all know that there are no twin engined, big grey planes in commercial service, right!
Our last witness, Fox employee (not a journalist otherwise he would have been introduced as such) says, '...there was definitely a blue logo with like a circular logo on the front of the plane, towards the front. It definitely did not look like a commercial plane, I didn't see any windows on the sides'.
Of the three, this is the only one with any credibility. I'm sure this witness is very sincere about what he claims to have seen. I'd like to suggest that evidence to counter his statement is largely circumstantial. If he was close enough to see a logo clearly enough to identify it as being circular and see windows, in the midst of the drama of the moment he may have been confused. It cannot be seen from this clip to which aircraft he refers but both American Airlines and United Airlines have blue in their logos and in a blur as they passed it is conceivable that they could have been perceived as circular. Aircraft windows are, by functionial requirement, particularly small and probably the last detail one would pay attention to - so it is very credibly true that he did not see any windows.
My other main reason for thinking this is that if the perpetrators were going to go to the trouble of painting a logo on the front of the plane they would have surely made it look like one or other of the airlines which they were substituting. |
The only correction I'd offer is that I recall the first witness saying 'That was not an american airline, that was not an american airline' - which I understood to mean she thought it was a foreign attack.
Regarding the windows, they are small individually, but can be clearly seen as a line running along the fuselage. Not a good photo, but that's good in this case.
The blue logo report is interesting, because although blue areas are present in both UA and AA shemes, neither have an area that could be interpreted as a disc.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flamesong
Major Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, I almost stand corrected. My typo. She says, 'That was not American Airlines. That was not an American Airlines'. She only uses the word 'an' in the second instance. To use the word 'an' in the second instance makes the sense of the sentence indistinct and almost nonsensical - 'an' is singular 'Airlines' is plural. As she had already said, 'That was not American Airlines' it might be assumed that she was going to add something to the end of , 'That was not an American Airlines...' like 'plane' or 'aircraft' which would have made the sentence make sense.
I did not say that windows were invisible. I just suggested that in the heat of the moment - and on a plane travelling at 300 knots - windows would be small and not be the most obvious detail to remember. We are not told how close the witness was but I would bet the farm that he was nowhere near as close as your photograph.
Neither did I suggest that either logo looked like a disc. I suggested that, again due to the heat of the moment and the motion of a plane traveling at 300 knots - probably nowhere near as close as the photo you posted - could be perceived as circular. If in doubt - try to tell me the shape of a car's wing mirror or the colour of its tax disc from 200 yards. Then imagine that it had just hit somebody. Is that the sort of detail you would remember? The enclosed photo is my approximation of what logo on a plane roughly the distance the one you provided would look like.
You may already be aware of this but eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Twenty people will give twenty different accounts. As these three witnesses are the only ones which are repeatedly cited to support the 'military aircraft' notion, I would not consider them reliable and I believe that any mileage down this route is a distraction which by either error or design will only serve to divide the purpose of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
676 Bytes |
| Viewed: |
3002 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flamesong wrote: | Yes, I almost stand corrected. My typo. She says, 'That was not American Airlines. That was not an American Airlines'. She only uses the word 'an' in the second instance. To use the word 'an' in the second instance makes the sense of the sentence indistinct and almost nonsensical - 'an' is singular 'Airlines' is plural. As she had already said, 'That was not American Airlines' it might be assumed that she was going to add something to the end of , 'That was not an American Airlines...' like 'plane' or 'aircraft' which would have made the sentence make sense.
I did not say that windows were invisible. I just suggested that in the heat of the moment - and on a plane travelling at 300 knots - windows would be small and not be the most obvious detail to remember. We are not told how close the witness was but I would bet the farm that he was nowhere near as close as your photograph.
Neither did I suggest that either logo looked like a disc. I suggested that, again due to the heat of the moment and the motion of a plane traveling at 300 knots - probably nowhere near as close as the photo you posted - could be perceived as circular. If in doubt - try to tell me the shape of a car's wing mirror or the colour of its tax disc from 200 yards. Then imagine that it had just hit somebody. Is that the sort of detail you would remember? The enclosed photo is my approximation of what logo on a plane roughly the distance the one you provided would look like.
You may already be aware of this but eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Twenty people will give twenty different accounts. As these three witnesses are the only ones which are repeatedly cited to support the 'military aircraft' notion, I would not consider them reliable and I believe that any mileage down this route is a distraction which by either error or design will only serve to divide the purpose of the 9/11 Truth Movement. |
Well, I admit I'm undecided at this stage if the reported hi-jacked airliners were involved. Big Boeings were used, but which ones has yet to be fully and incontovertibly established.
As far as I'm aware none of the wreckage recovered at the WTC have yielded serial or part numbers that have been verified to date.
There is the report of Flight 93 (the Shanksville plane) landing at Cleveland (later 'explained' as a mix up with Delta Flight 1989), and a recent report of Barbara Olson (reportedly on the Pentagon Flight 77) being arrested in possession of a Vatican passport. ( http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/09/325375.shtml ) - since 'discredited'.
It's seems to me it's still an on-going mystery what really happened.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blunt Republican
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 12
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hm... you see something going 500 miles per hour slam into the Pentagon... most people's first instinct wouldn't be an American plane would it? Most people probably would've though the Russians were bullshitting democracy like on the Simpsons. Actually, the center of the Pentagon is called "Ground Zero" and there is a cafe there called "The Ground Zero Cafe" because it was believed that would be where the Russians would strike.
Back to the point, eyewitnesses are infamously inaccurate. Lets not also forget the 100+ eyewitnesses who said it was an American Airlines jet.
_________________
I'll make a signateur later you stupid democrats! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oy, blunt and rude one.
As an avowed supporter of the official conspiracy theory and all things Bush, you are only allowed to post in critics corner. You'll feel right at home.
Remember to keep it polite now and have a nice day
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snowygrouch
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 628
Location: Oxford
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2006 10:34 pm Post subject: American Airlines |
|
|
I suppose its silly to imagine the CIA might have access to modern technology such as PAINT would it?
_________________
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist
President Eisenhower 1961 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bicnarok
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 334
Location: Cydonia
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flamesong wrote: | | Movement. |
That dot is the exact copy of a 3d model mesh I made for playing quake 2 online, no one could see me (because I was soo small) and I always won.
What a coincidence!! 
_________________
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind..." Bod Marley |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
