Planted Witness For Wtc2 Strike?, Theresa Renault on phone with Gumbel Options

[JackD]

[Jack's notes: another incredible witness breakdown. Note location of witness Theresa Renault...]

911 logic must-see website

Introduction - "Theresa Renault"

“Theresa Renault” was being interviewed by Bryant Gumbel on CBS at the time of the “second impact.” “Theresa” is explaining to Bryant that she both saw and heard the first explosion at WTC1, although she never actually saw any plane. My searches for Teresa/Theresa Renault in the downtown Manhattan area have come up empty, as the closest I’ve come is Theresa M. Renault, almost 90 miles away in New Paltz, NY.

Analysis – "Theresa Renault’s Eyewitness Account”

“Theresa” claims to have been inside her office at 8th Avenue and 16th Street in Chelsea. According to her, she works in “the tallest building in the area.” According to Google Earth, this places her inside the building at 111 8th Avenue.

This building has a fascinating history, to go along with its equally intriguing tenant list, which also now includes Google.

Almost as fascinating: once again we have a witness claiming to have heard a “very loud” explosion while indoors from over 2 miles away.

Of course, this pales in comparison to what she claims to have been able to observe from her vantage point looking south toward the towers. “Theresa’s eyewitness account” can be heard from 1:40 to 5:40 Video Run Time (VRT) of the following video:
YouTubeVideo of CBS As it Happened -- with Bryant Gumbel

[conspiracy_chest...]

Yes, but she said the explosion occurred when the plane hit the building. So no big deal there. Altho I guess the 'analyst' is claiming that the sound shouldn't have been heard that far away. She didn't qualify it, so it is a pretty relative statement. I think it would have been heard that far away.

I basically disagree with most of what the analyst is saying on that web page.

What I find more interesting is her statement that it was a smaller plane. ("It didn't look like a commercial jet, it was a smaller plane. It's definitely a smaller plane." @ 03:37-8)

I also don't understand how the "no plane hit the south tower" theorists can make that claim with video evidence like this? And all of the other videos.

They must be claiming that ALL video shots of the second plane are CGI, which is possible, but I think highly improbable. (note that they were too close up on the North Tower to see the whole plane, but you can see the top of it @ 2:53 -- it would have been MUCH easier to not mess with CGI'ing that if they did CGI the plane)

I suppose these two people could be "plants", as well. She's a pretty good actress if she was. The guy not so much, but it still seems more real than fake with him even.

Someone posted a comment on that video saying, " The supposed eyewitness at 6:10 is a lawyer for the OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY, and seems to be lying!", but without any additional comments or corroborating facts or evidence. If he was lying, he did a piss-poor job of it.

As for what the woman said and how she said it, you can hear people in the background, like they are standing around in an office watching and talking about it and reacting when the second plane hit. I think that is who she is talking to and reacting to when she makes some of the comments she does.

I think that whole page is a pretty poor analysis of that video.