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
They Never Saw The Plane, Testimony From Two NY Photographers

Factfinder Gener...
post Nov 7 2007, 09:16 AM
Post #1





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



About twelve weeks after the world changing events of September 11 2001, veteran interviewer and journalist, Charlie Rose had a special segment on his PBS show with four of the world's top photographers entitled: A conversation with photographers who captured 9/11 and its effects (10/31/2001)

You can watch the segment at:

Charlie Rose's Site.

or you can watch the whole program as aired on 10/31/01 on PBS at:

YouTube.

The segment is the second segment beginning at ten minutes and thirty seconds.

The segment in question was a panel discussion with the four photographers who had chronicled the attack on the World Trade Center and its subsequent devastation on the surrounding community. The four featured photographers were all well established professionals, obviously having been deeply affected by witnessing and documenting the events of that day. They were: Pulitzer prize winner Richard Drew of the Associated Press, New York Daily News Photographer: David Handschuh, Jay Maisel, who had been photographing the Twin Towers for 35 years, and finally international veteran, Thomas Hoepker, photographer for Magnum Photos.

Two of those photographers were on hand to photograph the events at the World Trade Center not long after the first Impact on WTC1 and thus witnessed the second impact on WTC2, the other two got to ground zero after this second impact. The two photographers who witnessed the second impact were,

Jay Maisel:


Jay Maisel is a photographer. His name has become synonymous with vibrant color photography that uses light and gesture to create countless unforgettable images for advertising, editorial and corporate communications. In addition, his pictures appear in books and art collections. Included among his many awards for excellence are the Art Directors Club Hall of Fame, American Society of Media Photographers' Photographer of the Year Award and the International Center of Photography's Infinity Award. Bio from Charlie Rose's Site

and David Handschuh:


Handschuh is one of the most respected photo-journalists in the business: "David Handschuh, the past president of the National Press Photographers Association, and a staff photographer for the New York Daily News is one of the most street-wise photographers in New York. He commonly arrives on the scene of a fire or crime with the first wave of police. Article from Digital Journalist

Here, in their own words is their fresh recollection of witnessing the second impact as they recount the day for Charlie Rose's program:

QUOTE (Jay Maisel: On YouTube at 15:13)
What I first saw was of a "hologram" flower that formed from the plane coming through from the south and I was looking to the south and I couldn't see the plane.  I just suddenly saw this great big obscene flower.  (Jay Maisel was watching the World Trade Center Towers from the roof of his six story studio, approximately six thousand feet away.)


Note: "I COULDN'T SEE THE PLANE" (Maisel)

QUOTE (David Handschuh: On YouTube at 33:35)
I was less than  a hundred yards away from the building I was standing on West Street and we heard this noise, and remember, I presumed cessna, never thought large aircraft, after the first one we didn't know attack, we didn't know terrorism, we just thought horrible accident.  I mean people go up and down the Hudson Corridor all the time learning to fly a commercial aircraft and then heard this noise that seemed to come from everywhere but didn't - I had no idea what it was and then the south tower just exploded, it just, it just, it just blew up, and somebody said "that was a plane", it's like: I was underneath it, I was looking at the tower, I had my camera in my hand, I heard the noise, I never saw the airplane and didn't realize that I had that picture 'til a neighbor brought the Daily News over the next day and it had my byline underneath: "Oh my God, look at that!


Note: "I NEVER SAW THE AIRPLANE" (Handschuh)

Here's a map for reference of the two photographer's viewing locations:



Maisel was on the roof of his studio, at the corner of Spring Street, and Bowery: NExE of the WTC (55 degrees of North) looking SWxW towards the Towers

Handschuh was situated on the corner of Liberty Street and the West Side Highway: right under the Towers to their West and looking upwards at them in an Easterly direction.

They both had a clear view of the alleged plane's approach towards WTC2 and the subsequent impact. By there own accounts, as professional photographers , i.e. highly skilled observers, and both in the process of documenting the event, they were focussed on the Towers. They both saw the explosion; they neither of them saw the plane.

To give you an idea of what they should have seen according to many allegedly authentic witnesses, let's take a look at two allegedly authentic videos taken from similar vantage points as the two photographers:

Miasel's viewing angle is approximately the same as the video commonly called the
Fant'Dev 2nd Hit

Handschuh's viewing angle isn't too dissimilar from the one from the video known as the
Luc Courchesne 2nd Hit

This Fanta'Dev video closely matches Jay Maisel's viewing angle. It was taken from the roof of a five story building just North of Rivington Street and Bowery. The six years that have passed since 9/11 have seen many changes regarding the rapidly upscaling skyline of the Bowery district, such as a the construction of a 16 story Condominium complex at 195 Bowery which would have obscured much of the shot, had it stood back then.

The buildings that are visible in the shot are (1) the back of the building near the South East corner of Rivington and Bowery with the Fant'Dev graffiti on it from which the clip gets its name, (2) Jay Maisel's studio/home/offiice, the Beaux Arts-style Germania Bank Building, 190 Bowery, at the corner of Spring Street, then positioned in front of the WTC Towers, is (3) the 41 story International Style Jacob K. Javits Federal Office Building, at 26 Federal Plaza and finally, beyond that there is (4) the distinctive Neo-Gothic Spire of the Woolworth Building, at 233 Broadway.

Jay Maisel's camera tripod is visible on the near corner of the roof of the Germania Bank Building (Maisel is not, but he would have been operating his tripod mounted camera with a remote). Note also that the Germania Bank Building with its six monumental stories, stands taller than the five story Fanta'Vid location, thus affording Jay a slightly better view of the approach of the alleged plane than the Fanta'Dev videographer would have had.

Here's Jay Maisel's studio, the Germania Bank Building, on 190 Bowery:



Here's a couple of still frames from the Fanta'Dev video.





Jay Maisel's photographs of the Towers that he took on 9/11 are not publicly available on the internet but an example of one of them is displayed during the Charlie Rose segment at thirty nine minutes and fifteen seconds into the YouTube video.

It is more or less taken from the same viewing angle as the Fanta'Dev Video, in fact there is only a couple of degrees difference between the two angles with Jay Maisel's position being just slightly to the left.

Here below is an article for further reference about Jay Maisel and his thirty five year history photographing the World Trade Center Towers. The second cityscape photo down is taken from Maisel's roof and shows the similarity of viewing angle to the Fanta'Dev Video relative to the towers:

Jay Maisel - Proof Positive

The materials presented here clearly demonstrate that Jay Maisel unquestionably had a good view of the alleged plane's approach towards WCT2 and should have seen it. He did not. The Fanta'Dev video is thus, in all likelihood, fraudulent.

Now, as for a comparison between the Luc Courchesne Video and what David Handschuh should have seen if it is to be deemed authentic:

Here's Handschuh's photograph of the blow-back from the impact, i.e. Handschuh's camera was trained on the impacted South face of the Tower:



And here's a still frame from the Luc Courchesne video for comparison:



David Handschuh was standing underneath the impacted face of the tower, on the corner of West Street (alongside the West-side Highway) and Liberty Street, looking up at the Towers in an Easterly direction.

Luc Courchesne was standing about 900 feet the South West of David Handschuh at Rectory Place, looking up at the towers in a North Easterly direction.

David Handschuh, as much as anyone, and in fact even more so than Luc Courchesne, had a ring side seat for the 2nd Hit. He should've seen the plane. He did not. The Luc Courchesne video is, in all likelihood, fraudulent.

Reviewing the YouTube Video at twenty six minutes and forty seconds in: David Handschuh can be heard speaking a revealing piece of offscreen dialogue, as he talks under fellow photographer, Richard Drew. Richard Drew, who didn't witness the second impact, is discussing a photo he took of the WTC2 damage:

QUOTE (Drew and Handschuh in conversation on the Charlie Rose Show)
Richard Drew: You can see the profile of the airplane the wings coming out of the two sides and like the smoke going and I said this is just amazing

David Handschuh: (Talking Under) but was this a large aircraft for you, or for you maybe it was a small one?

Richard Drew: All, all I saw was a hole...


Twelve weeks after the event, David Handschuh is obviously trying hard to reconcile his lack of having seen a large plane with the contrary evidence to hand.

The discrepancy between what Handschuh knows he witnessed and what was reported is apparent from other interviews and articles:

QUOTE
'Handschuh was standing on the corner of Liberty and West when he heard a noise that "seemed to come from everywhere." He thought that perhaps a large natural gas main in the building let go. "But all of the sudden the second tower explodes into flame. And I'm standing underneath it. And I think, OK. This is a second bomb. This is not an accident."   Handschuh instinctively raised the camera to his eye. "I have the fireball coming out of the West Street side".  David Handschuh's Personal Account


QUOTE
"Then out of nowhere came this noise. This loud, high-pitched roar that seemed to come from all over, but from nowhere in particular. And the second tower just exploded. It became amazingly obvious to anyone there that what we all had hoped was a terrible accident was actually an overt act of hostility. I didn't see the plane hit, although I was looking at the tower at the time."  I Was There


QUOTE
"Then this noise filled the air that sounded like a high-pressure gas line had been ruptured. It seemed to come from all over, not one direction. Everyone was looking around thinking, "What was that?" And the second tower explodes."  Capturing Heroism and History


A large passenger plane, traveling at under 1,000 feet is unmistakable by visual and aural identifiers and impossible to miss by size and decibel level. If there had been a Boeing 767 that morning, approaching the Towers in Handschuh's and Maisel's clear view, they would have seen it, unless they were blind and deaf, which is not in any way feasible for photo-journalists. They didn't see or hear any plane.

Maisel talks of the surreal image of the explosion just appearing, using the metaphor of the emergence of an obscene hologram flower. David Handschuh documents hearing a noise that filled the air and sounded like a high-pressured gas line had been ruptured. This confusing noise couldn't be attributed to any visible object and seemed to be coming from all over but nowhere in particular. He was not alone in his confusion. According to him everyone was looking around wondering what the sound was and then came the second tower explosion. His instinct was that it was from a bomb.

A twenty foot long penetrator missile at approximately 1,000 feet is going to be very hard to spot.

A Tomahawk Penetrator does, however, emit a high-pitched sound that could well be described as similar to that of a ruptured high pressured gas line.

Incoming Missile Fly-By

Now if you imagine the sound of that missile as above, overlaid on the following video by 911review (who "scrubbed" the plane from the Courchesne footage to show how easy it is to fake videos)

Luc Courchesne 2nd Hit - "Plane" Removed

then we are probably getting close to a reenactment of what David Handschuh and Jay Maisel actually witnessed: a twenty foot long penetrator missile, too high up to clearly see, screaming down towards the south tower out of a clear blue sky!

This being the case I want to round off this post by referencing a video that otherwise might merely be dismissed as an anomaly. In light of the above evidence, however, it takes on high significance as it begins to look like one of the few surviving examples of an authentic and credible record of what actually took place that fateful day: September 11 2001 - Attack On America.

"They're F#cking Bombing It"

QUOTE (From the video)
Unknown Woman: But that wasn't a plane!?
Unknown Man: It was like a rocket or something.


Lastly, I feel that the "Final Word" on this issue should belong to Jay Maisel.

QUOTE (Jay Maisel: on YouTube at 43:25)


"I don't think any of those fire fighters obviously had any idea of what was going to happen or they wouldn't have done it but the fact that they go in when other people come out, you know, I mean it, it... it breaks your heart."



This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 7 2007, 09:24 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chek
post Nov 7 2007, 12:13 PM
Post #2





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 187
Joined: 24-October 06
Member No.: 157



Well, it seems to me that despite your best efforts FFG, all you've got is two people
who could've/would've/should've but didn't see something, for whatever reason.

You will no doubt prefer to speculate that's because there was no airliner.

I prefer to speculate that the forward noise footprint of a high speed aircraft
leaves very little reaction time, and they missed their shot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Nov 7 2007, 03:38 PM
Post #3





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (chek @ Nov 7 2007, 11:13 AM)
Well, it seems to me that despite your best efforts FFG, all you've got is two people
who could've/would've/should've but didn't see something, for whatever reason.

You will no doubt prefer to speculate that's because there was no airliner.

I prefer to speculate that the forward noise footprint of a high speed aircraft
leaves very little reaction time, and they missed their shot.

Both cameramen interviewed by Rose who really should have seen planes didn't. They were both watching the very air that the plane was alleged to be flying through and yet they winessed the absence of a plane, i.e. No Plane. It wasn't as if they were looking in the wrong direction and got caught flat footed. Handschuh, who was as close to the impact event as you could get, heard the noise of the incoming projectile, along with those around him, and he states that it sounded like a ruptured gas main and that no one knew where the heck it was coming from.

QUOTE (David Handschuh)
"Then this noise filled the air that sounded like a high-pressure gas line had been ruptured. It seemed to come from all over, not one direction. Everyone was looking around thinking, "What was that?" And the second tower explodes."


And then there was Dick Oliver, veteran reporter for WNYW-TV, who also saw no plane, who's cameraman saw no plane, interviewing eyewitnesses on the streets of Manhattan who saw no plane and who argued with his anchor, Jim Ryan, that some people were telling him they thought the projectile was a missile, before being taken off the air.

QUOTE (Dick Oliver)
"Jim, I don't know whether we've confirmed that this was an aircraft, or to be more specific, some people said they thought they saw a missile. I don't know how people could differentiate, but we might keep open the possibility that this was a missile attack on these buildings."


I am not making these witnesses up, chek, and there are more that I could present. Yes, it seems that the perps have the media in their control and authentic witnesses will thus be suppressed but they do exist amidst the plethora of plants and dupes who say they saw something happen that quite simply couldn't have.

You have people that didn't see the plane on the one hand and this fits with logic and science and quite honestly, the radar returns, but contradicts the official story, on the other hand you have people that say they did and this fits with a bunch of phony as heck videos, and supports the story that the perps want you to believe.

You makes your choice.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 7 2007, 03:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Nov 7 2007, 04:17 PM
Post #4


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



Sorry, I don't have time right now to watch Charlie Rose, but I will. His interviews often have a way of helping his guests reveal things they would rather keep to themselves. Little truths uncovered.

Did the other two photographers see the plane?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 7 2007, 10:38 PM
Post #5





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,921
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



FFG

Your theory is based very much on what "should" have happened, or should not have happened.

These guys should have seen the airplanes even though 480 knots is 8 miles per minute and one guy was expecting a Cessna.

The airplane "should not" have been able to fly as fast as it apparently did.

B-17's "should not" have made it back across the English Channel with huge holes in the airframe, but some did.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CocaineImportAge...
post Nov 8 2007, 03:03 AM
Post #6





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 426
Joined: 26-August 07
From: Brentwood, Essex, UK
Member No.: 1,846



[/QUOTE]"They're F#cking Bombing It"[/QUOTE]

... its unfortunate that the person filming zoomed out at that moment... due to the distance and quality of video its really not surprising that you can`t see a plane!... but as he zooms back in you can just see its engine dip down behind the girders of the bridge!

...i once drove through a road junction on a green light... there was a policeman standing in the middle on the island... a car ran the red light but i kinda saw it coming and averted an accident... the policeman tried to ticket ME for running a red light!?!... thanks to the persistence of my passenger at the time the policeman stood down.

...i once saw a UFO ( really, i`m `being serious ) i stood in the street watching it for about 20 mins`... a light, very bright, in the sky at angle of about 60 degrees moving in an erratic irregular manner... people were walking past me quite often... some glanced at me but none looked up... the light then shot from one side of the horizon to the other and then vanished in a second!... i never bothered to report it... but if i did and there was an investigation and the people in the street were asked did you see a UFO?... THEY WOULD HAVE SAID NO!.... but it was there!

... the point of these to instances in my life being that people don't always perceive everything from an event that there is to be perceived!... and sometimes witness`s can really get the sh*t end of the stick!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Nov 8 2007, 07:40 AM
Post #7





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (Oceans Flow @ Nov 7 2007, 03:17 PM)
Sorry, I don't have time right now to watch Charlie Rose, but I will.  His interviews often have a way of helping his guests reveal things they would rather keep to themselves.  Little truths uncovered.

Did the other two photographers see the plane?

Hi, Oceans Flow. The other two photographers got to the scene AFTER the second impact, so they weren't witnesses.

The interview is well worth watching. The truthfullness of the photographers' testimony comes across and there is other interesting information that comes out, e.g. how Handschuh was caught up in the blast wave from the tower demolition. The wave lifted him up into the air and carried him a considerable distance.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 8 2007, 07:40 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Nov 8 2007, 09:48 AM
Post #8





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,921
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I can't remember the numbers, but I have read several articles over the years indicating how eye witness testimony to crimes, just like the story CIA tells about the cop at the intersection, is notoriously inaccurate. One would not think that, I did not think that, but the number of convictions overturned that were based upon eye witness testimony is astounding.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Nov 8 2007, 03:22 PM
Post #9





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (amazed! @ Nov 7 2007, 09:38 PM)
FFG

Your theory is based very much on what "should" have happened, or should not have happened.

These guys should have seen the airplanes even though 480 knots is 8 miles per minute and one guy was expecting a Cessna.

The airplane "should not" have been able to fly as fast as it apparently did.

B-17's "should not" have made it back across the English Channel with huge holes in the airframe, but some did.

When assessing the credibility of impossible seeming events what else should one relate the events to other than to what should have happened?

What "should" have happened is entirely relevant in this instance. Handschuh identifies an altogether different projectile than a large passenger plane. Twin engine airliners have a distinct sound that would not be described as a ruptured gas main. This description fits a missile. He was in a perfect position to see the plane and yet described this sound as coming from everywhere and nowhere. This fits with the source of the sound being a 20 foot long missile at 850 feet, not a plane.

Maisel's rooftop view gave him a good vantage point to view the flight of the alleged plane towards the towers from far off all the way up to the towers yet he describes the obscene blossom of the explosion seemingly appearing out of the blue.

Anyone interested in the truth of 9/11 needs to pay heed to this testimony from these two highly credible and well qualified witnesses, IMO.

While we are at it: let's change the word should to would:

If there was a plane impacting WTC2, Handschuh and Maisel surely WOULD have seen it but they did not.

Your B-17 point is another straw man argument, IMO. I never said that B-17's can't fly with holes in the airframe. As far as I know, nobody in the NPT camp has. Flying above VMO is obviously possible. That flying above VMO is unsafe is, however, without question as the VMO limit is designed as a safety threshold. Flying in extreme excess of VMO, way beyond performance envelopes, can rightly be expected to produce certain results, in light of previous and comparable occurrences. This is why people conduct research tests. This is why manufacturers set limits. There is a reason why the Boeing's ASI only goes up to 450 knots. Anything above that is obviously unthinkable, unachievable, according to the manufacturers and all their rigorous tests. As I have noted in my UA 175 thread (Here) the plane was recorded as having greatly exceeded the maximum number on the ASI.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 8 2007, 03:35 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Nov 8 2007, 03:32 PM
Post #10





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (amazed! @ Nov 8 2007, 08:48 AM)
I can't remember the numbers, but I have read several articles over the years indicating how eye witness testimony to crimes, just like the story CIA tells about the cop at the intersection, is notoriously inaccurate.  One would not think that, I did not think that, but the number of convictions overturned that were based upon eye witness testimony is astounding.

Agreed, amazed!: eyewitness testimony is often unreliable. Some eyewitnesses are mistaken in what they claim to have seen for any number of reasons. Many false eyewitnesses are presented in legal cases. Using false testimony to benefit an agenda is as old as the hills and incredibly common. Simply put: another word for this technique is lying! We should not be surprised that vast amounts of people, i.e. false eyewitnesses, are found to have been doing it related to the biggest false flag event in history.

On the other hand, Handschuh and Maisel are credible witnesses, IMO. They do not seem to be mistaken about what they did or didn't see and they do not seem to be lying. They provide a solid contrast to the likes of Stanley Praimnath and other eyewitnesses to the plane impacts, all who sound ridiculous and incredible when interviewed.

Objectively viewed, when weighing Handschuh and Maisel's testimony against the testimony offered by the plane witnesses, I quite honestly find Handschuh's and Maisel's to be the more credible, by a wide and overwhelming margin.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 8 2007, 07:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Nov 8 2007, 09:09 PM
Post #11





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



Please compare the Charlie Rose interview with eyewitnesses, Handschuh and Maisel, who saw no plane hit WTC2, to these interviews with three people who allegedly witnessed planes hitting the Towers.

Tony Arrigo

Stanley Praimnath

Dean Brown

Do these three witnesses really sound credible?

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 8 2007, 09:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Nov 9 2007, 05:53 AM
Post #12





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



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?

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 9 2007, 05:54 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chek
post Nov 9 2007, 06:55 AM
Post #13





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 187
Joined: 24-October 06
Member No.: 157



QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Nov 9 2007, 09:53 AM)
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?

I don't know anybody who hasn't judged that 'witness' statement as the OCT being faultlessly delivered in one short soundbite paragraph.

His remarkably efficient and cogent delivery stands in stark contrast to every other passerby who can barely string a single coherent sentence together from shock.

But that's a long way from proving no planes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Nov 9 2007, 07:30 AM
Post #14





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (chek @ Nov 9 2007, 05:55 AM)
QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Nov 9 2007, 09:53 AM)
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?

I don't know anybody who hasn't judged that 'witness' statement as the OCT being faultlessly delivered in one short soundbite paragraph.

His remarkably efficient and cogent delivery stands in stark contrast to every other passerby who can barely string a single coherent sentence together from shock.

But that's a long way from proving no planes.

Chek, the scientific principles of penetration mechanics PROVE no planes sliced through the towers and exploded inside them. This is a total impossibility, so it must NOT have happened. (I will glady debate this in detail.) When I write this, RPT advocates then say something like, "OK, but what about all the witnesses?"

Well, in this post, I seek to illustrate that the witnesses for No Planes are more credible than those for Planes.

Well actually, I am being too kind there. I will revert to my earlier description of plane witnesses: they are either liars or dupes. BTW: it is worth repeating that all the plane witness testimony supports the official story, which of course fundamentally revolves around planes hitting the WTC Towers.

The proof that planes hit, such as it is, is made up from eyewitnesses (who come across as phony when scrutinized) and film footage (which comes across as phony when scrutinized.)

What is RPT left with as solid proof? No Science, no credible testimony, no credible physical evidence: what has it got?

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 9 2007, 09:05 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Nov 9 2007, 09:57 AM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Planes or no planes...
the buildings were rigged.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chek
post Nov 9 2007, 10:20 AM
Post #16





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 187
Joined: 24-October 06
Member No.: 157



QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Nov 9 2007, 11:30 AM)
QUOTE (chek @ Nov 9 2007, 05:55 AM)
QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Nov 9 2007, 09:53 AM)
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?

I don't know anybody who hasn't judged that 'witness' statement as the OCT being faultlessly delivered in one short soundbite paragraph.

His remarkably efficient and cogent delivery stands in stark contrast to every other passerby who can barely string a single coherent sentence together from shock.

But that's a long way from proving no planes.

Chek, the scientific principles of penetration mechanics PROVE no planes sliced through the towers and exploded inside them. This is a total impossibility, so it must NOT have happened. (I will glady debate this in detail.) When I write this, RPT advocates then say something like, "OK, but what about all the witnesses?"

Well, in this post, I seek to illustrate that the witnesses for No Planes are more credible than those for Planes.

Well actually, I am being too kind there. I will revert to my earlier description of plane witnesses: they are either liars or dupes. BTW: it is worth repeating that all the plane witness testimony supports the official story, which of course fundamentally revolves around planes hitting the WTC Towers.

The proof that planes hit, such as it is, is made up from eyewitnesses (who come across as phony when scrutinized) and film footage (which comes across as phony when scrutinized.)

What is RPT left with as solid proof? No Science, no credible testimony, no credible physical evidence: what has it got?

Well, I don't buy that it was all 'slicing through steel' FFG.

From the visual evidence available in the numerous hi-res still photos such as that below, I'm more inclined to suspect it was a case of battering sections out of the way, as the straight lined edge breaks of the column sections indicate.



This post has been edited by chek: Nov 9 2007, 12:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Nov 9 2007, 03:42 PM
Post #17





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (chek @ Nov 9 2007, 09:20 AM)
QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Nov 9 2007, 11:30 AM)

Chek, the scientific principles of penetration mechanics PROVE no planes sliced through the towers and exploded inside them.  This is a total impossibility, so it must NOT have happened.  (I will glady debate this in detail.) When I write this, RPT advocates then say something like, "OK, but what about all the witnesses?"

Well, in this post, I seek to illustrate that the witnesses for No Planes are more credible than those for Planes.

Well actually, I am being too kind there.  I will revert to my earlier description of plane witnesses: they are either liars or dupes.  BTW: it is worth repeating that all the plane witness testimony supports the official story, which of course fundamentally revolves around planes hitting the WTC Towers.

The proof that planes hit, such as it is, is made up from eyewitnesses (who come across as phony when scrutinized) and film footage (which comes across as phony when scrutinized.)

What is RPT left with as solid proof?  No Science, no credible testimony, no credible physical evidence: what has it got?

Well, I don't buy that it was all 'slicing through steel' FFG.

From the visual evidence available in the numerous hi-res still photos such as that below, I'm more inclined to suspect it was a case of battering sections out of the way, as the straight lined edge breaks of the column sections indicate.

But chek, the evidence for planes is ONLY consistent with the airplane entirely slicing through steel intact. All the reports account for this as fact. There was no discernible deceleration in the evidence, or deformation of the airplane's structure to account for any other type of entry: hence Purdue's simulation:

Purdue's Simulation (Complete - 5 minutes)

This exhaustively sourced visual analysis from Purdue represents, in state of the art fashion, the event as allegedly captured on numerous pieces of film and allegedly witnessed by numerous individuals.

Tell me that this isn't an impossible event being depicted here. Watch the wing tips and tail section of the aluminum based airframe 'Slice" through multiple steel beams and reinforced concrete and steel floors. This categorically cannot happen in the real world, chek.

The incredible nature of the Purdue simulation in fact proves that the evidence for the plane impact event was fabricated.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 9 2007, 06:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
u2r2h
post Nov 9 2007, 08:15 PM
Post #18





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 171
Joined: 9-August 07
Member No.: 1,653



FFG thx for your patience and persistence. Handschuh is most credible.

eyewitnesses are incredibly valuable.
eyewitnesses testimony from educated, worldly grown-ups, given-on-the-spot, and describing something that they themselves are unable to positively identify..

is IMHO a god-sent.


What I first saw was of a "hologram" flower that formed from the plane coming through from the south and I was looking to the south and I couldn't see the plane. I just suddenly saw this great big obscene flower.

What is he describing? a Holo-"flower" around the "plane" before "impact" or the shape of the nose-out ("coming through")

In case you are unclear about it .. I tell you where I am coming from.
In my narrative the missile carried a holo-projection-transceiver (conjugate mirror formed in air by who-knows-what) and the perps fu*ked-up because the f*cking thing came out the other side and 'was still going'.

But please ignore where I am coming from, we all come from our own ego-planet. Please, yar'all, answer my question:

What is he describing? a Holo-"flower" around the "plane" before "impact" or the shape of the nose-out ("coming through")

(edited: typo)

This post has been edited by u2r2h: Nov 9 2007, 08:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
u2r2h
post Nov 10 2007, 07:00 AM
Post #19





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 171
Joined: 9-August 07
Member No.: 1,653



I saw it now. He makes his hands form a ball. He *does* mean the fireball when he speaks of the HOLOGRAMME FLOWER.

Maybe the Nose-Out *did* look distinctly like a hologram from that angle.

The way he speaks quietly and hush-hush he probably knows exactly what he is saying
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Nov 10 2007, 08:40 AM
Post #20





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (u2r2h @ Nov 10 2007, 06:00 AM)
I saw it now. He makes his hands form a ball. He *does* mean the fireball when he speaks of the HOLOGRAMME FLOWER.

Maybe the Nose-Out *did* look distinctly like a hologram from that angle.

The way he speaks quietly and hush-hush he probably knows exactly what he is saying

Yes, Maisel is most sincere and thoroughly believable (as is Handschuh). Maisel saw the effect of the explosion but not what caused it, the explosion seemed thus to grow as an obscene flower. It seems clear to me that he is using the term"hologram" as a descriptive metaphor, to describe the blossom made out of brilliant light. What an eloquent description and quite amazing testimony. Truly, as you say, a god send to those of us interested to find out the truth. We are so fortunate that Rose has documented these keen observers and their testimony. thumbsup.gif
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: 30th September 2014 - 09:50 AM