IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Was "flight 11" A Smaller Plane?, Eyewitness testimony says yes.

Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jan 18 2012, 03:36 PM
Post #1


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



This is from a thread at the old defunct Loose Change Forum. Poster 'Lord Tsukasa' had done the same research I had done at one point regarding the small plane accounts. Since we have evidence for a plane swap because we know the original craft were still airborn after their alleged impacts, it is clear that once we see a pattern in witness testimony, and in the case of the planes at the towers-photographic/video evidence, that we are dealing with modified drones at the towers.

My personal belief is that they used a small plane to keep everyone off guard, as everyone would believe it was an accident while ATC was busy trying to untangle the mess of who was still airborne and who hit. This would allow for the drone known as "UA Flight 175" to hit the South Tower in a spectacular live showcase which obviously made it apparent that we were then under terrorist attack.

As I said in the thread...

"...they can tell people whatever they want. They used a smaller plane to keep the alarms low and make people think it was an accident. If it was a large airliner people would have been more inclined to suspect wrongdoing. I think it was to keep the military and the country in the first stage of complacency."

Anyway, here are all the witness accounts to support a small plane, some specifically supporting a strange plane that even shoots missiles or projectiles before it makes impact which is what the original Naudet bros video supports(look closely)...



QUOTE
Anthony Bartolomey EMT on the first plane that hit WTC1...

"Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Leer jet type, a small jet plane. Some said it was a large passenger plane. One person actually said that it was like a military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building.


QUOTE
“I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane….no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot plane, small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane….yes, going into the building, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something, I don't know, it's like they work with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before!”-Karim Arraki


QUOTE
"Hey Grandpa, I'll tell you what woke me up. They bombed the World Trade Centre. I'm looking at it and Mi-Kyung's video taping it. Terrible. I heard, Grandpa, I saw it. It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb...a missile...er...this could be world war three."

-The narrator from the Mekyung film shown on "911 In Memoriam"


QUOTE
“I was waiting a table and I literally saw a, it seemed to be a small plane. I just heard a couple of noises, it looked like it like ‘bounced’ of the building and then I heard a, I just saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down….it just seemed like a smaller plane, I don’t think it was anything commercial…”-Stuart


QUOTE
“We’re walking the dogs and we saw a plane flying really low, a jet, a small jet, and it flew directly into the World Trade Centre. And then all the pieces fell to the bottom…in seconds.”-Anonymous


QUOTE
“…we saw a plane flying low overhead which caught all of our attention. We looked up. It was making a b-line for the World Trade Centre. It was very low, extremely low, not a big plane like an airliner …uh… but not a tiny propeller plane, a small, small jet plane.”-Mary Cozza


QUOTE
"I mean, I hate to admit this, but I'm sitting there hoping that someone has made a mistake; there has been an accident; that this isn't the hijacked airplane, because there is confusion. We were told it was a light commuter airplane."

"I thought it could have been an accident...I thought the plane was much smaller..."-Sid Bedingfield


QUOTE
"I was told by somebody that we had an eyewitness who happened to be an off-duty firefighter who told me that he saw the first building get hit and it was hit by a prop jet, which I think turned out to be the wrong information, but everybody sees things differently. But he said he was an eyewitness. I gave him to a fire marshal. I never got his name personally."-Steven Mosiello


QUOTE
"We proceeded in Tower 1. I think the revolving doors were kind of busted up, so I think we went through a window. At that point we were still not sure that it was a plane that had hit the tower. There was some talk from the civilians coming down that a plane hit. The consensus was that it was a small plane."-Roy Chelson


Woody Box:

QUOTE
Air Traffic Controllers agree:

"The first outside word that controllers received was that a small twin-engine plane had hit one tower of the World Trade Center. They thought it was a twin-engine Cessna that had taken off earlier from Poughkeepsie, N.Y., to fly south under "visual flight rules," meaning the plane was not under direct air traffic control. "

Source: Washington Post, 9/16/01

These controllers, by the way, are the same who got their experiences that morning taped only to watch months later how a hyperactive FAA manager named Kevin Delaney ripped the tape apart and distributed the parts over several bins.

Wondering what happened to this Cessna from Poughkeepsie...


22205...

QUOTE
"After the first plane flew in, I got a call from one of our guys in New York. 'Hey, a plane just flew into the World Trade Center…I don't know, it looks small.'"

http://www.faa.gov/sept11...4.cfm?portrait=McLaughlin
Greg McLaughlin - deputy director of the Federal Air Marshal Service



More on the LCF small plane discussion and the "ATC confusion" factor, which is covered here at PFT as well:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/95931/1/

Additional reading and analysis on the alleged "Flight 11" small drone...
http://x11drone.0catch.com/

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Jan 18 2012, 03:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jan 23 2012, 11:58 PM
Post #2


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrHvSE_4JJQ...feature=related
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 24 2012, 10:15 AM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Jan 24 2012, 04:58 AM) *


I've never ever seen that flash pre-impact explained nor that 10 second gap between explosions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Jan 24 2012, 09:02 PM
Post #4





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I recall listening to the radio driving to work in New Rochelle (just north of NYC) that morning... I think it may have been ABC Curtis and Kuby and they were taking calls about what had just happened... A woman called in and she said she was in NJ and saw a small plane hit the north tower. I then drove to work and by the time I got there (15 minutes) the story was that we were under attack from hijacked jetliner. I think someone could get the tapes of the AM stations in NYC and verify this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jan 25 2012, 06:58 AM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 376
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (SanderO @ Jan 25 2012, 10:32 AM) *
A woman called in and she said she was in NJ and saw a small plane hit the north tower. --by the time I got there (15 minutes) the story was that we were under attack from hijacked jetliner. I think someone could get the tapes of the AM stations in NYC and verify this.


Dear 'SanderO'

There have been a number of people recorded, as having considered, the -aircraft- they saw which appeared to be the one that impacted the North Tower, was a small one.

The descriptions given were varied, as it is apparent in most instance the observation was only a fleeting one, but it is apparent nobody considered it to be a large commercial airliner, which a Boeing 767, certainly is.

The size consideration is very 'subjective', depending upon what is considered 'large', a Boeing 727, considered by some people as 'small', against a Boeing 767 or 707, or even 757.

An aircraft of fuselage length, between 50 and 100 feet could well have been considered 'small', in OZZ, below 50 feet, an aircraft would probably be considered to be a 'light' aircraft, but that could be all different in America.

But let me append this, with the findings of work almost completed, where it appears the engine bits retrieved from the impact, are of Pratt and Whitney J57 engines, which are most definitely, not the engines, fitted to either of the Boeing 767 which have been 'mooted' as the aircraft involved.

Robert S


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jan 25 2012, 06:53 PM
Post #6


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE
The descriptions given were varied, as it is apparent in most instance the observation was only a fleeting one


How is it apparent? You never spoke with them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 27 2012, 05:30 PM
Post #7





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,929
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



The link in the second post was blocked for me, but I want to say thank you Aldo for posting this.

And I've missed seeing it for months now, stoopid me.

When I first came to PFT I soon encountered a video taken from a parking lot video, focused on ground level for cars, and in the just barely visible blue sky above, the camera records the short final and impact. The camera was positioned that that the outside of the frame was always showing the tower.

Never have seen that again, but it was memorable. My impression was just what you suggest in this thread--it looked too small to be a Boeing.

The verbal statements is very convincing, thanks again. salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 4 2012, 08:15 AM
Post #8





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 376
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 28 2012, 07:00 AM) *
The link in the second post was blocked for me, but I want to say thank you Aldo for posting this.

Never have seen that again, but it was memorable. My impression was just what you suggest in this thread--it looked too small to be a Boeing.

The verbal statements is very convincing, thanks again. salute.gif


Dear 'amazed'.

You may care to have a look at this video, that has just been posted on youtube.

23investigator --An A3 Skywarrior reduced to an edited mess supposed to be a Boeing 767.

The A3 Skywarrior used in it, has been taken from a video on youtube, A3 Skywarrior last flight and fly by NAS Fort Worth Texas.
A3 Treasurer's shared video file.

That was one strong aircraft, capable of a very good 'clip' -- significantly better than a Boeing 767.
They liked belching out black smoke - also, as well as making a very exciting noise.

Having loved aircraft since I could first get out the front door, this aircraft has always impressed as a "graceful bird".

Take a look at it at 5.06, tilt your head and what does it look like, 5.18 it looks "magnificent", then really shows off with not a cloud in the sky.

Robert S

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Jun 4 2012, 08:18 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 4 2012, 09:40 AM
Post #9





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,929
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



No link Robert.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 5 2012, 02:05 AM
Post #10





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 376
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (amazed! @ Jun 4 2012, 11:10 PM) *
No link Robert.


Dear 'amazed'.

If you --Google-- '23investigator an a3 skywarrior', there is a link to youtube.
or
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsMmjOqGQf8

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 5 2012, 02:40 PM
Post #11





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,929
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



That worked Robert, thanks.

I see your point, and you might be right. I am no judge of picture editing and overlays and such, but I understand what you're saying.

So you are suggesting that the aircraft that struck in place of AA11 was an A3? I kept seeing reference to South Tower, which I thought was the second tower struck?

It seems to me that the airplane that was supposed to be UA175 was pretty much a 767. And I thought the north tower was struck first, south tower second?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 6 2012, 12:01 AM
Post #12





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 376
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



[quote name='amazed!' date='Jun 6 2012, 04:10 AM' post='10805338']
That worked Robert, thanks.

So you are suggesting that the aircraft that struck in place of AA11 was an A3? I kept seeing reference to South Tower, which I thought was the second tower struck?

Dear 'amazed'.

Great.

Answering your first two questions.

"So you are suggesting that the aircraft that struck in place of AA11 was an A3?"
Not in the presentation, you have just considered.
As that is portion of a photograph taken of the 'aircraft' that hit the South Tower.
But it does seem that there is every possibility that an A3 Skywarrior, did hit the North tower, considering the proportions of the messy image, that is all, that is available to consider.
Other than some debris on the ground, that appears to have come from the North Tower direction, which looks most unlike parts from a Boeing 767, more likely an A3 Skywarrior.

"I kept seeing reference to South Tower, which I thought was the second tower struck?"
The South Tower, was the second of the towers to be hit by an 'aircraft'.
Which from what is contained in the photograph, in the presentation, you have just considered, was not a Boeing 767, instead, very likely from the original detail contained in the photograph, an A3 Skywarrior.

The complete photograph can be referenced on, http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_photos.html
There is a video and photograph section -- the photo section is best to refer to.

Initially I made a presentation containing the complete photograph, but it also contained the start stop arrow immediately adjacent the right wing, so the presentation you have considered was made and replaced the initial one.

'Expert', is not something I claim to be, that is in anything, but during the last decade my time has been dedicated to getting an understanding about digital imaging, a very powerful 'forensic tool', when used appropriately.

The extension of the wings beyond the engines, is just visible in the 'edited' photograph, which can be further revealed, by the use of features of Adobe Photoshop.
This is still being worked on to obtain the optimal result, but it is sufficient to say, that the wings of the 'overlay' A3 Skywarrior, fall within this detail, extending to exactly the same length as the evidence remaining in the 'edited' photograph.

Will put the brakes on here, until more is achieved.

Robert S

ps; the name of the photographer, is contained in the detail of the reference given, it would be interesting to know, if they actualy edited the photograph to change the appearance of the aircraft.

oooh, ooh, Ive stuffed up the quote thing again, for some reason, sorry Mr Balsamo.

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Jun 6 2012, 12:27 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jun 7 2012, 01:04 AM
Post #13


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



Please stop the A3 skywarrior madness. It is an old, antiquated plane that was thrown out there by likely disinfo ops regarding the pentagon.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DANDPT
post Jun 16 2012, 06:20 PM
Post #14





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 32
Joined: 10-February 11
Member No.: 5,642



QUOTE (Aldo Marquis CIT @ Jun 7 2012, 01:04 AM) *
Please stop the A3 skywarrior madness. It is an old, antiquated plane that was thrown out there by likely disinfo ops regarding the pentagon.


Please go to Jack White's photo studies (PENTAGON) at 911studies.com for information on the possibility of an A3 striking the Pentagon.
The plane is 60% of the size of the 767. Wingspan 72 feet.
In it's last configuration, it served as a refueling tanker.
A3's were converted to remote control/drone operation.
The photo of the damaged compressor blade section in front of the building, which he shows on page 77 (Chapter 26) of his presentation has been identified
as part of a Pratt & Whitney J57 Turbojet Engine (JT8D). The plane could carry 2000 gallons of flammable material/explosive material.
A3 Skywarrior may be considered as a very viable candidate for the attacks at the towers also.

PS. Perhaps many of you are too young to remember Jack White's earliest JFK work on the Oswald backyard photos.
For his efforts, a guy showed up at his door and stabbed him seven times, nearly killing him.
One does not need to question his bonafides.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jun 17 2012, 04:20 AM
Post #15





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 376
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (DANDPT @ Jun 17 2012, 07:50 AM) *
Please go to Jack White's photo studies (PENTAGON) at 911studies.com for information on the possibility of an A3 striking the Pentagon.

PS. Perhaps many of you are too young to remember Jack White's earliest JFK work on the Oswald backyard photos.
For his efforts, a guy showed up at his door and stabbed him seven times, nearly killing him.
One does not need to question his bonafides.


Dear 'DANDT'

Good for you 'braving', ALdo's, sometimes 'acid tongue'.

Photographs are one of the "truest records" of 'evidence', available, providing of course they have not been 'doctored'.
Of course, they are also open to 'each individuals' interpretation, that is providing they even look at them, before having them discounted.

There is another factor which must be accounted for, as well.
Is the photograph of something 'actually' connected to the event under consideration.

There is no doubt, that particularly video footage, has all been treated to various forms of editing.
Some of it not particularly subtle, a good deal, very clumsily performed.
Sufficient in the first instance, but does not stand up well under more 'critical', consideration and analysis.

There is so much variance, between individual 'subject matter', that in itself, 'screams', there is something wrong.

In the near future some further illustration of this, will be added to, 23investigator, on you tube.

At the very least in one instance, even if it is not accepted that the aircraft indicated is an A3 Skywarrior, it most definitely shows that the aircraft shown in the original 'video', is only, approximately, half the size of a Boeing 767 200.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jun 17 2012, 07:00 PM
Post #16


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



Picture staring, conspiracy theorists - what are ya gonna do?

Jack White=disinfo. Proven.

So you read about an A3 sky warrior somewhere and now you are sold. That's not how you research.

This all originated with Karl Schwarz and Jon Carlson. Yet you've never researched either of them or the source or validity of their claims. You just buy in and in the case of the alkaline based, 23investigator, just transfer it to the towers.

It's frustrating to see you all work backwards and ultimately muddy the waters.

A3 skywarrior myth origins:
http://www.rense.com/general70/jt.htm

Research Schwarz and you will see he got it all wrong, was involved in infighting with dubious characters from the patriot movement, worked with highly discredited disinformation journalist Tom Flocco, and then disappeared to Vienna Austria to start a ANOTHER supposed shady cover company in the nanotechnology field.

More here:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/...chwarz.html?m=1

The surveillance video only shows an object (although inserted) that can only be a 757 sized object. The perps set up gullible people and then let the air out of their bubble by releasing things like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8...be_gdata_player

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Jun 17 2012, 07:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gramps
post Jun 18 2012, 09:26 PM
Post #17





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 10
Joined: 21-August 11
Member No.: 6,160



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 24 2012, 06:15 AM) *
I've never ever seen that flash pre-impact explained nor that 10 second gap between explosions.

just went to youtube- has been removed:(
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jun 18 2012, 10:50 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (Gramps @ Jun 19 2012, 02:26 AM) *
just went to youtube- has been removed:(


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4I_uuU4N6E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbCcb6NV8Io

Not saying it was a missile or anything other than an aircraft but there's an apparent flash just before impact.

I'd love to see a 3D replication with speed, azimuth, etc but it would need to be exact. I don't know if that's possible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
starviego
post Apr 15 2013, 01:00 AM
Post #19





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 22
Joined: 29-December 08
Member No.: 4,049



WTC1 north tower AA flt 11



The morning of 911 my friend Gary called me on the phone and told me to turn on the TV. I remember one of the first images I saw was video of what looked like a twin engine propeller driven commuter type aircraft fly past one of the towers and then slam into the next one. I never saw that clip again. So I've always had more of an interest in this 911 anomaly. Here are a few other witness accounts to add to the list:


http://www.sptimes.com/News/webspecials/attackextra/
the initial report of the first WTC attack involved not a 757, but a smaller commuter aircraft.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.html
I'm actually uptown at 86th and Riverside. I can see the World Trade Center from about half the building up to the top. And about five minutes ago, as I was watching the smoke, a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west. And about 20 or 25 stories below the top of the center, disappeared for a second, and then explode behind a water tower, so I couldn't tell whether it hit the building or not. But it was very visible, that a plane had come in at a low altitude and appeared to crash into the World Trade Center.

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/wtc1witnessreports/
“I was waiting a table and I literally saw a, it seemed to be a small plane. I just heard a couple of noises, it looked like it like ‘bounced’ of the building and then I heard a, I just saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down….it just seemed like a smaller plane, I don’t think it was anything commercial…”

Derenowski:
“Well, it, it looked, it wasn’t a Cessna or anything like that. It was a [unrecognisable]
plane, a midsize plane

http://letsrollforums.com/so-hit-north-tower-t8678.html?amp;
--At 8:51 am NBC's Today show host Katie Couric broadcast that "a small commuter plane" had crashed into the World Trade Center.
--Another commercial aircraft in the vicinity then radioed in with "reports over the radio of a commuter plane hitting the World Trade Center."
--In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25, 2001, NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart said of the first September 11 report: "We were told it was a light commuter airplane. It didn't look like that was caused by a light commuter airplane."
--"The Trade Center is on fire, I thought, I hope that it is not serious. As I was heading up the escalator to exit to the street, I saw Rick Klepper walking up the stairs next to me. He told me that a commuter plane had accidentally hit the World Trade Center. He looked unconcerned. As I exited the Mall, I saw office papers and chunks of wallboard everywhere. The papers were blackened by fire around the edges. I felt relief. Now I finally knew and could see what was going on. I was facing the south side of the North Tower (the opposite side of the gaping hole) and could only see fire on two floors. It’s a good thing that it was only a small commuter plane I thought; the people above it will be able to get out."

http://911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/11116
"The first outside word that controllers received was that a small twin-engine plane had hit one tower of the World Trade Center. They thought it was a twin-engine Cessna that had taken off earlier from Poughkeepsie, N.Y., to fly south under "visual flight rules," meaning the plane was not under direct air traffic control. "
Source: Washington Post, 9/16/01

http://www.atsadgrab.com/forum/thread750103/pg7
--I was at work chatting with a friend on MSN messenger. The friend lived about 5 blocks from the towers... He typed: "wow, a small plane or something just hit one of the towers..." -- he had seen it, as we were chatting. For what ever reason, he thought it was a small cesna.
--Now my girlfriend is filling me in, saying they think it was a small airplane that hit the WTC.
-- I heard the girl on the radio saying some smoke is coming out of the tower , then some min. later she said a ‘’small airplane’’ hit the other tower
--My wife (at the time) called me to say they were reporting a small plane or helicopter hit the WTC.
--GMA was reporting it as a small plane crash...
--I was working at the FAA offices on 14th and K downtown DC. We were about to attend a meeting when someone said that a small aircraft had hit one of the towers.

This post has been edited by starviego: Apr 15 2013, 01:02 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Apr 19 2013, 01:49 PM
Post #20





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,929
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Starviego

Yes, there have been reports from the beginning saying it was a smaller airplane. There was video here at PFT from a parking lot camera that supported that idea, but it was a very short shot. The airplane did not appear to be a Boeing.

And if all this is true, then the video by the Naudet fellow (?) must be staged and fake.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st October 2014 - 06:21 AM