They Never Saw The Plane, Testimony From Two NY Photographers Options

[Omega892R09]

Here's one more clip of another truly "incredible" 9/11 eyewitness supporting the notion that planes hit the towers:

"Ream right into the side of the twin tower, exploding through the other side"

Come on now, guys: isn't this all just really bad acting?

Too right.

I just knew that was the clip I was going to see before clicking the link. It's a classic! I could now repeat that word perfect. It is one I scorned the first time of seeing.

Who was that guy?

[Factfinder Gener...]

I just knew that was the clip I was going to see before clicking the link. It's a classic! I could now repeat that word perfect. It is one I scorned the first time of seeing.

Who was that guy?

At a rough guess:

(IMG:http://weblogs.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/blog/uncle%20logo.jpg)

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 10 2007, 03:52 PM

[Factfinder Gener...]

Here's a pretty informative "roundup" page of alleged witnesses:

WTC2 Witness Reports - WTC2 Media Hoax

[KILL YOUR TV!]

[behind]

I hear him say: "horrible flower"

[Factfinder Gener...]

I hear him say: "horrible flower"

Are you suggesting a transcript correction, here, behind? If so, if you could be more specific, i.e. give me the time or something to let me know exactly what you are referring to, and I will double check.

Thanks.

P.S. If that wasn't what you meant by your post and I missed your point, then... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

[behind]

It is "Jay Maisel: On YouTube at 15:13" in opening post. (its sounds like "horrible" to me)

youtube

(But I am not very good in english...maybe I am misunderstanding something here)

This post has been edited by behind: Nov 14 2007, 12:38 PM

[Factfinder Gener...]

It is "Jay Maisel: On YouTube at 15:13" in opening post. (its sounds like "horrible" to me)

youtube

(But I am not very good in english...maybe I am misunderstanding something here)

Hey, behind, first of all thank you for taking the time to watch this important testimony from Maisel.

I have reviewed the segment in question here and I maintain that he is saying the word "obscene" in his description of the explosion/flower.

This to me is Maisel eloquently communicating that to him the explosion was obscene in the sense of it being offensive to moral principles.

In this regards, horrible and obscene mean essentially the same thing. Either way you have got the sense of what Maisel is saying exactly right. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[Omega892R09]

Hey, behind, first of all thank you for taking the time to watch this important testimony from Maisel.

I have reviewed the segment in question here and I maintain that he is saying the word "obscene" in his description of the explosion/flower.

Maisel describes twice in quick succession what he saw. In the first iteration at 15:14 he describes a ‘…horrible flower…’ and then from about 15:24 he describes, ‘…a great big obscene flower…’. That first iteration is most certainly ‘horrible’.

Not that the above adds much to the discussion. What I will add is that his diction is difficult to parse in places.

[Factfinder Gener...]

Hey, behind, first of all thank you for taking the time to watch this important testimony from Maisel.

I have reviewed the segment in question here and I maintain that he is saying the word "obscene" in his description of the explosion/flower.

Maisel describes twice in quick succession what he saw. In the first iteration at 15:14 he describes a ‘…horrible flower…’ and then from about 15:24 he describes, ‘…a great big obscene flower…’. That first iteration is most certainly ‘horrible’.

Not that the above adds much to the discussion. What I will add is that his diction is difficult to parse in places.

Omega892R09, you have alerted me to an important transcript error that I suppose was what Behind was trying to point out to me.

At 15:13, Jay Maisel says "What I first saw was of a "horrible" flower" and not as I previously transcribed: "Hologram" flower.

Thank you, behind and Omega892R09 for alerting me to this (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif) and my apologies to u2r2h for getting you all excited about holograms for nothing (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

This truly is a dedicated team, here at P4T. It is quite marvellous. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 17 2007, 07:13 PM

[Guest_Ningen_*]

The Handschuh photo is also significant in that there is no plane debris showering down as one would expect in a real plane impact.

[saturnaspider]

The Handschuh photo is also significant in that there is no plane debris showering down as one would expect in a real plane impact.

Yes! Ningen is right on this point.

Fact Finder General is right overall with this particular thread. (BTW: Who was that masked man? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif) )

Both Handschuh and Maisel would've seen the alleged UA175 if it impacted the south tower. They were watching the towers and had a clear view. Handschuh was on the ground looking up and easterly from Liberty and West. Maisel was looking West of South Westerly. from an elevated position on the corner of Bowery and Spring. The alleged plane was recorded on various pieces of film as flying due North East on a descending path towards WTC2's so-called South face (though the towers were oriented 29 degrees from North, thus squaring, in general, with Lower/Mid Manhattan's street plan).

Jay Maisel reluctantly but definitively confirmed that he saw the impact but saw no plane in a heated phone call interview with Jeff Hill of pumpshitout (video no longer available on YouTube.) Maisel seemed to be under the misguided impression that his view of the alleged plane's approach was obscured by the Towers, which a topographical study confirms was not the case.

For those of us still trying to work out WTFH (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif) (and granted, there may not be many of us left) this very credible witness testimony is highly significant information, IMHO. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/yes1.gif)

This post has been edited by saturnaspider: Feb 18 2009, 12:28 AM

[dMz]

Yes! Ningen is right on this point.

Fact Finder General is right overall with this particular thread. (BTW: Who was that masked man? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif) )

FFG "vanished" sometime around Nov. 2007 after being very "active" on this forum, Saturna.

[ogrady]

Must refer everyone again to one of my favorite sites - German Engineers Help the USA.

http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm

This site shows clearly that a plane could not have passed through the buildings. A plane outline doesn't fit through the eerily similar 'plane shaped holes'. All of the columns aren't even severed. Looking at a frame-by-frame of the supposed videos of the second strike, steel and concrete don't even slow the 'plane' down. Impossible.

Just like jet fuel can't melt steel, aluminum can't fly through steel. It's elementary.

These witnesses never saw the plane because there was no plane to see.

I can't comment on holograms (though this is certainly possible). But the video was CGI.

[saturnaspider]

A plane outline doesn't fit through the eerily similar 'plane shaped holes'. All of the columns aren't even severed.

Just like jet fuel can't melt steel, aluminum can't fly through steel. It's elementary.

These witnesses never saw the plane because there was no plane to see.

Precisely, ogrady. I urge every earnest truth-seeker (who hasn't already done so) to check out the Purdue simulation (up on youtube on many channels). It shows how the alleged plane is meant to have penetrated the building but the vertical stabilizer and wing tips do no damage to the corresponding sections of the structure. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

This post has been edited by saturnaspider: Feb 21 2009, 01:06 AM