Tuesday, June 20, 2006

More Eyewitness "Evidence"

Here's a rather bizarre clip:



First off, obvious problem beyond whether they "dubbed in" the woman claiming it was not an American Airlines (sic) is that the film appears to be taken from several miles away. Second question is whether the woman has any expertise as a plane spotter?

41 Comments:

At 20 June, 2006 11:51, Blogger nesNYC said...

Second question is whether the woman has any expertise as a plane spotter?

Oh yeah! We need expert plane spotters to see people (humans) in windows going 500MPH @ the Pentagon, right? LOL!

 
At 20 June, 2006 12:06, Blogger default.xbe said...

one person said that, and im willing to disregard her testimony entirely, theres still hundreds of other people who say a commercial airliner hit the pentagon

are the CTers willign to give up one of their witnesses? probbaly not sicne they onely have 2 or 3 to begin with

 
At 20 June, 2006 12:51, Blogger Pat said...

Nesnyc, no, we only need expert plane spotters at the Pentagon, right?

 
At 20 June, 2006 12:53, Blogger Chad said...

I'm curious as to how this woman knew an American Airlines flight was supposedly hijacked. She seems to be saying that as events are unfolding, and if memory serves, there were many differing reports at the time regarding what flights were hijacked.

Again.... CT evidence that happens DURING the attacks is taken as gospel.

Why bother having another investigation if we can just cherry-pick what a few misinformed people said between 9am and 11am that day?

 
At 20 June, 2006 13:00, Blogger James B. said...

I still don't know why millions of people bother to go see the Blue Angels every year, since apparently high speed planes are invisible or something....

 
At 20 June, 2006 13:44, Blogger nesNYC said...

I still don't know why millions of people bother to go see the Blue Angels every year, since apparently high speed planes are invisible or something....

That's not the point. The point is MORE THAN ONE "person" that supposedly saw the "plane" hitting the Pentagon saw people through the windows. That's like seeing what color underwear the Blue Angle pilots were wearing in their very visible but fast flying planes.

 
At 20 June, 2006 13:48, Blogger James B. said...

What difference does it make? Maybe they did see it, the human eye is amazingly accurate? In any case no matter how hard you want to close your eyes and wish for it, it doesn't change the fact that hundreds of people, independent from each other all saw a large commercial jetliner.

Number who saw a cruise missile: Zero.

Number who saw a Global Hawk: Zero.

Number who saw an an A-3 Skywarror. Zero.

Damn incovenient for you, ain't it?

 
At 20 June, 2006 13:55, Blogger Chad said...

Nesnyc, you do realize this thread has nothing to do with the Pentagon incident, right?

 
At 20 June, 2006 13:56, Blogger nesNYC said...

Maybe they did see it, the human eye is amazingly accurate?

Now apply that to "That wasn’t an American Airlines" and this whole post falls to pieces.

 
At 20 June, 2006 13:57, Blogger nesNYC said...

Nesnyc, you do realize this thread has nothing to do with the Pentagon incident, right?

Right, it's about perception and your pal there just buried himself.

 
At 20 June, 2006 14:02, Blogger Alex said...

"Right, it's about perception and your pal there just buried himself. "

No, dumbass, because not every eye is equaly capable. If I have a master sniper claiming to be able to see the name-tag on a guy 300 meters away, I'd be a lot less likely to question it than if it's coming from Stevie Wonder.

As for the question about seing passangers in the plane, it's irrelevant. What all of those witnesses DO report is AN AIRPLANE. Not a missile. Your logic goes something like this:

Witness: I saw those two cars crash. I think the licence plate on the one was ACDB-239.

CT-er: AHA! Actually there was no such licence plate found at the scene! Therefore it wasn't a car crash!

 
At 20 June, 2006 14:04, Blogger nesNYC said...

No, dumbass, because not every eye is equaly capable.

Give me a break! So only eyes that support your position are accurate? You just nullified yourself as well. NEXT!!

 
At 20 June, 2006 14:14, Blogger default.xbe said...

ok, lets number up the witnesses who say a commercial plane, disregard any who saw people

then take anyone who saw something contradictory (a non-AA plane, cruise missile, commuter plane, a-3, c-130, global hawk, helicopter, flying saucer, elvis, etc) and cancel one of the witnesses who saw a jetliner for each contradictory storey, im willing to bet a sizable amount of money we still have a great deal of people who saw a commercial airliner hit the pentagon

no, not all eyes are equal, but 100 pairs of eyes is better than 1 pair of eyes

 
At 20 June, 2006 14:38, Blogger Alex said...

Give me a break! So only eyes that support your position are accurate? You just nullified yourself as well. NEXT!!

No, numbnuts, because I never claimed that the witnesses who saw passsangers were right. Personaly I think it's horse-shit. But there is a possibility that they may have. Whereas there's zero possibility that your witness could tell that the aircraft she was looking at didn't belong to AA.

The other difference is that wheter or not the pentagon witnesses saw passangers is irrelevant to "the offical story" as you so quaintly refer to it. Whereas the accuracy of your witness is pretty much crucial to your argument. Which says a lot about your standard for facts and evidence.

 
At 20 June, 2006 14:54, Blogger WRH said...

LOL that's hilarious. What was said is correct - it's United Airlines! Man, the fakery is so lame: as if anyone would say anything like that; that was almost certainly dubbed and came right off a script.

 
At 20 June, 2006 23:12, Blogger jackhanyes said...

I noticed that WTC1 is burning and wtc 2 isn't. Which means this video was taking after wtc1 was hit but before wtc 2 was hit.

8:46 American Airlines Flight 11 hits wtc 1
8:48 CNN reports the crash
8:55 Bush learns about the crash
9:03 Flight 175 hit wtc 2
9:05 Bush learns about second crash

I also notice the camera is pointing towards the south with the sun in the east. The flight path would have be very close to where the video was taking. Since we know the flight was flying low, and you're don't need to be an expert to know what airline is which (been to an airport lately?), it looks like what the woman is saying could be true. Could be. Not is, could be.

 
At 20 June, 2006 23:25, Blogger jackhanyes said...

Let's play a game. Whit out cheating, name the airline:

airline 1

airline 2

airline 3

airline 4

airline 5

See, you don't need to be an expert to know what airline is what. Anyone can do it.

Bonus points: Name the make and model of the plane.

 
At 20 June, 2006 23:28, Blogger jackhanyes said...

LOL that's hilarious. What was said is correct - it's United Airlines! Man, the fakery is so lame:

Not as lame as saying something is lame when you can't get basic facts right.

At 8:46:40 a.m., Flight 11 was deliberately crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center between the 94th and 98th floors.

 
At 21 June, 2006 03:17, Blogger apathoid said...

jackhanyes said

Let's play a game. Whit out cheating, name the airline:

1 American B737-800
2 Air Tran B737-700
3 Delta B777-200 '97 paint scheme
4 United B747-400
5 Qantas B767-300

What do I win?

 
At 21 June, 2006 03:26, Blogger apathoid said...

I dont exactly understand this. This was moments after the North Tower impact, correct?
How did she know that they were reporting it as AA11 just after it happened. I smell something rotten in Denmark.
Why would someone refute something that isnt yet known?
There was initially alot of confusion about what had happened.

 
At 21 June, 2006 03:50, Blogger apathoid said...

Since we know the flight was flying low, and you're don't need to be an expert to know what airline is which (been to an airport lately?), it looks like what the woman is saying could be true. Could be. Not is, could be.

Yes, but why would she say it wasnt American Airlines when they were not reporting as such for quite some time after the impact.
Also, in my opinion as an aviation spotter(of both natural and man made birds) ID'ing a 767 at 1000 ft @400+ knots should be relatively easy(if you know your airlines) unless you were directly underneath it. Many airlines have a polished aliminum finish on the bellies of their planes and it would be difficult to differentiate between an American and a Contintenal 767 given that both have bare bellies and gray engine cowls...

I'm thinking this is an obvious dub job. You only see her lips moving for a spilt second and it looks out of sync with the speech.

 
At 21 June, 2006 08:54, Blogger Telemaque said...

Or this was a woman who had a friend/loved one flying on AA that day and was rambling in distress.

Such iron clad "evidence" we have here.

 
At 21 June, 2006 09:41, Blogger shawn said...

hahah beyond the guy you see on the screen "The Flash". So I guess he buys into every crazy idea.

Does he forget we can watch video of the planes hitting the towers? One woman's instant reaction isn't as good.

 
At 21 June, 2006 10:15, Blogger James B. said...

Let's play another game, look at a picture of a cruise missile, and pretend it looks anything like a 767.

 
At 21 June, 2006 12:38, Blogger Falco98 said...

man.. good thing i never released that video from the JFK assassination of some guy running away yelling "it wasn't lee harvey oswald!". especially since nobody knew it was him at that point.

 
At 21 June, 2006 12:43, Blogger Falco98 said...

has it occurred to anyone else that she may have, in fact, been saying "that was not an american airliner" (or at least, meant that), as if she just believed a foreign attack was taking place?

that is to say, nothing to do with the AIRLINE called "american", but the country of origin...

 
At 21 June, 2006 13:07, Blogger shawn said...

has it occurred to anyone else that she may have, in fact, been saying "that was not an american airliner" (or at least, meant that), as if she just believed a foreign attack was taking place?


I assumed something somewhat similar. I thought she was in shock and was saying that it couldn't have been Americans or an American plane (her assumption being a plane from elsewhere crashed).

 
At 21 June, 2006 16:45, Blogger CHF said...

jack, nesnyc,

are you saying that every eyewitness is lying?

So much for "only a few people would be involved."

 
At 21 June, 2006 20:55, Blogger jackhanyes said...

What do I win?

A cookie

are you saying that every eyewitness is lying?

If was I saying that, then all witnesses would be lying. What I am saying that there may have been something about flight 11 that made this woman think that it wasn't "An American Airline."

If true, this would fit in with the theory that the plane was switched.

However, it's a theory, just like everything else with 9/11. Fact is, no one really know exactly what happened.

 
At 21 June, 2006 21:10, Blogger shawn said...

However, it's a theory, just like everything else with 9/11. Fact is, no one really know exactly what happened.

It's not really a theory because theories have evidence backing them. Although it's not like people haven't tried to pass off non-theories as theories before (Intelligent Design being the most famous).

 
At 21 June, 2006 21:30, Blogger apathoid said...

What I am saying that there may have been something about flight 11 that made this woman think that it wasn't "An American Airline."

Why in the hell would they use a drone(767 or not) on one Tower knowing hundreds of people would have seen it, when they used an airliner on the other Tower. It makes no sense.
Unless of course you think UA 175 was a drone too??
I saw the Naudet video of the first hit and by golly it looked like a shiny AA 767 to me....

 
At 22 June, 2006 10:48, Blogger WRH said...

Jackhanyes,
The video's resolution and play quality are so crappy on my computer that I thought it was the 2nd plane.

 
At 22 June, 2006 15:34, Blogger CHF said...

jack,

"Fact is, no one really know exactly what happened."

Really? You seem pretty convinced the towers were brought down via CD.

 
At 22 June, 2006 17:03, Blogger WRH said...

Right on, CHF. Everyday, perusing Wikipedia and blogs, I see 9/11 conspiracists simultaneously claiming that something happened with 100% certainty and is undeniable, but that nobody really knows the truth and that "it's all speculation."

 
At 22 June, 2006 20:02, Blogger CHF said...

wrh,

They're convinced of the "truth" when they're in their own little echo-chamber.

Once they engage in public discourse and encounter real opposition and common sense they start to pull that "we don't know" or "just asking questions" bullshit.

 
At 22 June, 2006 20:36, Blogger WRH said...

Yep. On a related note, I signed up for "9/11 TopSites" hoping to get a bigger conspiracist audience for my blog so that they may know the truth, but my site was taken down, presumably because the conspiracists who operate it can't tolerate any opposing viewpoints. I just signed up again.

 
At 23 June, 2006 14:16, Blogger jackhanyes said...

Really? You seem pretty convinced the towers were brought down via CD.

How little do you know about me. I consider it because it fit better then the OS that doesn't even begains to explain why it fell. In fact, the OS is they don't know why it fell.

 
At 24 June, 2006 08:50, Blogger Alex said...

In fact, the OS is they don't know why it fell.

Eh? What planet are you living on? The term OS is idiotic in the first place because it suggests a "story". There's no story to it, the official reports are simply a report on the research conducted into the 9/11 attacks. If you read them, they'll tell you exactly why the towers fell. That you haen't bothered to go through them, and therefore think that no cause for the structural failiure has been established, is your own damn fault.

 
At 24 June, 2006 10:23, Blogger jackhanyes said...

If you read them, they'll tell you exactly why the towers fell.

Do they?

The NIST report cover from the time the plane hit to the start of the colpase, but not the colpase. They mention that beyold that, they can't explain it.

The FEMA reports saying they don't know why the tower fell.

How about you read them again.

 
At 25 June, 2006 04:26, Blogger Alex said...

You really are in your own little world. Look, I don't even need to quote the reports themselves. The NIST page says the following before giving you the links to the report:

"This report describes how the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires led to the collapse of the towers after terrorists flew jet fuel laden commercial airliners into the buildings"

Yep, it really sounds like they don't know how the buildings collapsed, eh? If you can't be bothered to read the report, at the very least take a look at their site.

 
At 13 September, 2006 05:19, Blogger Joe Berenguer said...

A fantastic blog yours. Keep it up.
If you have a moment, please visit my airline flight site.
I send you warm regards and wish you continued success.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home