Firefighter Describes “Molten Metal" at Ground Zero,

[Twist_U_Up]

“Firefighter Describes “Molten Metal at Ground Zero, like a Foundry

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en

Molten steel running down the channel rails


pop pop pop goes the building

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9tLNvZDRuOE

be sure to turn your speakers on

[John Q. Citizen]

1. Also good there at youtube is the eyewitness reports of the secondary

explosions.

[hack89]

2. Aluminum is a metal, isn't it ? nt

[SidDithers]

3. Why yes, yes it is...nt

Sid

[Bolo Boffin]

4. The second clip is a forgery.

The pop-pop-pops have been added.

Here's the actual clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGI33HsiCc&eurl=

Notice the complete lack of pop-pop-pop. Notice that even the screams of the crowd have been edited into the forged video!!

Sigh. How many times do we have to tell you CTers - you're entitled to your own opinions, but NOT YOUR OWN FACTS! You scream about an Orwellian government, and then you fall for crap like this...

As for the first clip, it appears to have been, shall we say, creatively edited. I'm looking for the actual program this was a part of...

[Anarcho-Socialist]

5. Facts have an "OCT" bias

That's why 9/11 truth-seekers "go with their gut".

[Twist_U_Up]

6. got links or evidence as to which video is forged ?

Should we just take your word for it,
or is it just because you said so ?

Is this the Official way of dealing with incriminating videos,discrediting them ?


sigh.
Isn't there a point in time after so many coincidences that have amassed, that you OCTers might be able to put 2 and 2 together and realize that 19 Saudis with box cutters could not have pulled this off.

Some people just dont have common sense, I hope these folks aren't part of our legal system. I fear that alot of false charges would be handed out.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Stop defending the indefensible.

You have posted a forged video. It is absolutely clear which one has an edited soundtrack and which one the original. Your video discredits itself, and by continuing to associate with it, you discredit yourself.

You are wrong. We aren't the ones relying of forged evidence. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[wildbilln864]

27. you stop....

babbling about shit without backing up your assertions! Do you have proof the clip has added audio or not?
:eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Go away, son, you bother me. n/t

[wildbilln864]

39. Good!

and I ain't going no where!
:hi:

[William Seger]

8. Putting 2 and 2 together?

The problem is, conspiracy theorists don't put 2 and 2 together -- if they did, they wouldn't be called conspiracy theorists. They look at what might or might not be 2, then assume there must be another 2 somewhere, because they really really want the answer to be 4. Then they get really pissed off at people who question their first 2 or don't accept their arithmetic with imaginary 2s -- even going as far as implying that's just the "Official way of dealing with" bad arithmetic: "discrediting" it.

Anyway, in addition to looking at which one has been around longer, you might be able to take a good guess which video has the faked sound track by looking at some of the other videos taken in the same area at the same time. I've certainly seen a lot that don't have those "demolition charge" noises, and that's the first one I've seen that does. Got any more that do? In fact, for 5 years now, people have been pointing to the fact that all you hear on any of the videos is the building collapsing -- no "demolition charges" -- as indicating that it wasn't a demolition job. Then, lo and behold, 5 years later, one turns up that does have bomb noises. But... hmmmm, there's also an apparently older version of that same video that doesn't have those noises.

So which version is the real one? I'd say it's pretty clear where the burden of proof is, anyway.

> Some people just dont have common sense, I hope these folks aren't part of our legal system. I fear that alot of false charges would be handed out.

Unbelievable. Back atcha, dude. I shutter to think what our legal system would be like if most DAs, judges and juries reasoned the way conspiracy theorists do. I'm very happy to say that I seriously doubt they do.

[Make7]

9. "pop pop pop goes the building"

Regarding the sound from the second video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9tLNvZDRuOE">link) in the opening post, there is another version of that clip at the following link:

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem12/

That site has quite a few videos of the collapse of WTC2 (link), perhaps you can find one video with the same "pops" as heard on the youtube video linked to in the OP.

- Make7

[sabbat hunter]

172. why not

why couldnt 19 saudis armed with box cutters have pulled off what happened on 911?

[seatnineb]

10. That is strange...because this witness describes a "bang,bang,bang"

..at 1 minute 10 seconds on this video.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=n593Hth8h9M&mode=related&search=

So the above witness testimony seems to conform to the audio soundtrack of this video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9tLNvZDRuOE

Than the audio of the video you quoted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGI33HsiCc&eurl=

[Bolo Boffin]

11. When there's a forged video to be defended, count on seat9b. n/t

[seatnineb]

12. Wow...non rebuttal of the year!!!!

Here eat some more testimony that conforms to the audio of the aformentioned video in the original post:

"You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down. "

John Malley -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Which one of those videos has audio cutting out when the video cuts out

and which one dubs in human screams?

You are a defender of a lie. You should be ashamed, but after years of speaking with you, I know you will not be. You will continue to brazenly defend the indefensible. That is a video of thousands of people dying, and someone has SHAMEFULLY replaced the audio to accomodate their own LIES, and you are here defending that heinous action.

Par for the seatnineb course.

[seatnineb]

14. How much more punishment are you willing to take......

Irrespective of whether the video that you believe to be a forgery is a forgery.....

Witnesses did hear a popping sound............

"As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out. "

Kevin Murray -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)

[Bolo Boffin]

15. For someone who claims to hate PREJUDICE in EVERY FORM

you certainly do love defending a lie that suits your own.

[seatnineb]

16. Why don't you aknowledge that witnesses heard "popping" sounds?

At first I thought it was -- do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop"? That's exactly what -- because I thought it was that.

Angel Rivera -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Tell me something, have you ever checked out the documentary I suggested?

Protocols of Zion?

[seatnineb]

18. No.....because I don't believe in that prejudiced horse shit.

However.....I do believe in checkin' out witnesss testimony with regards to the Towers collapsing..........you know ...the topic of this thread.....

I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the building.

Thomas Fitzpatrick -- Deputy Commissioner for Administration (F.D.N.Y.)

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Your language is unclear - are you calling the documentary prejudiced?

Because Mark Levin does a remarkable job of being even-handed for every side of the issue.

If you mean the anti-semite Protocols forged in Russia was the prejudiced horseshit, I'd agree with you.

And the topic of this thread is that lying video posted at this point - no quote you've produced are inconsistent with what happened (a building fell down without controlled demolition), but that video is a forgery, simply put, and you continue to defend THAT particular piece of prejudiced horseshit.

Why?

[seatnineb]

20. I was calling the Protocols Of Zion that was created in Russia horse-shit.

Now back to the topic at hand.....

You insist that the audio track on that video is forged....something I myself would not rule out.

But what is not disputed is that witnesses did hear these cracking,banging popping sounds........

... it almost actually that day sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight, and then just a huge wind gust just came.

Stephen Viola -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Then you would enjoy the documentary. Truly.

OT: Nothing in the witness testimony implies bombs. Viola's statement says "sounded like bombs".

But it was not. A building collapsing makes plenty of sounds, and as you can hear in the unforged video, there's a lot of noise happening as the tower falls.

But not enough for the forger of that soundtrack, who had to create much more "bomb-like" sounds, and then edit in screams. The forged video, like the forged Protocols, shows a particular breed of desperation that would be pitiful if it weren't so heinous.

And really, pointing out that some witness report popping sounds in this context is a bit like saying that, sure, the Protocols are a forgery, but Silverstein's a Jew.

[seatnineb]

22. The so -called forged video's soundtrack conforms to the witness testimony....

The next thing I knew, you started hearing more explosions. I guess this is when the second tower started coming down.

Albert Turi -- Deputy Assistant Chief (F.D.N.Y.)

The so-called forged video contains what sound like explosions as the WTC begins to collapse.

The so-called authentic video features more of a uniform /roaring crashing sound......but I don't hear any explosions....do you?

The so-called forged video contains explosions which conform to witness testimony...

The so-called authentic video does not contain the explosions which conform to the witness testimony......

Who is to say that the so called authentic video did not have a forged soundtrack?

[Bolo Boffin]

23. The forged video appeared a few days ago.

The authentic video conforms with witness testimony.

You do enjoy propping up a forgery, don't you?

[seatnineb]

24. Is that the best you got?.....

I find it quite amusing that you believe that your so-called authentic video which does not contain popping sounds:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGI33HsiCc&eurl=

...conforms to witness testimony such as the one below:

I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.

Dominick Derubbio -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)

You can play your so called authentic video to your heart's content Bolo.......but I don't hear 3 seperate explosions in it.

I do here seperate explosions in this video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9tLNvZDRuOE

I think that your so-called authentic video is a forgery.......

Edit: wrong video!

[Bolo Boffin]

25. You succumb easily to forgeries that reinforce what you want to believe.

Pity, that.

Check out that documentary.

[seatnineb]

40. But the witness testimony does not conform to the soundtrack on your tape.

WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW
CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE
INTERVIEW DATE NOVEMBER 2001
TRANSCRIBED BY ELISABETH NASON

then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode the popping sound and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building"

I don't hear popping sounds on the audio track of your 2 videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGI33HsiCc&eurl=
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc...

I do hear popping sounds on this video:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9tLNvZDRuOE

[Bolo Boffin]

69. Do you hear the same audio track on my two?

Oh, you can't listen to both now - 911research, in the interest of truth and an open discussion, has changed the file's location on their site.

Yes, I do hear popping sounds on the original video. They are happening in a rapid sequence, and could also be mistaken for an approaching train, according with other testimony.

You need to stop defending this forgery.

[seatnineb]

70. I heard the 911research audio this morning before it was yanked....

And it sounded like a uniform roar crashing sound to me.

There is also some music right at the beginning of the segment just as the WTC starts to fall.....but I hear no explosions....

Irrespective of whether the videos are authentic or forgeries.....witnesses did hear explosions during the collapse.

[Bolo Boffin]

72. The video is back now.

Bully for them.

Irrispective of whether the videos are authentic or forgeries...

I love the sound of backpedaling in the morning. One video most definitely is a forgery. I've found a corroborating video with the original soundtrack - can you find an older copy of your forged video anywhere?

[seatnineb]

73. No I can't find an older copy but the source seems to be 911revolution

...who is German.

He also appears to be now banned from Youtube.

Why don't we ask him where he obtained the soundtrack from.

[Make7]

71. See post #9. There's a link to a page with that same video.

Post #9

[greyl]

26. Does anyone agree with you? Take a poll. nt

[wildbilln864]

28. Well I have to go...

with the testimonies of the witnesses over bolob! He makes a claim and offers no evidence. We already know his agenda in this forum so why should we believe him without evidence? I think bolob's video is the forgery unless he can show why he believes what he claims. Just sayin...

[Bolo Boffin]

30. I am not going to go...

quietly.

You are going to have to muss me up.

[seatnineb]

41. Well I am pretty sure that a minimum of 41 posters probably don't!!!!!!

But I guess we can always find out.

[stansnark]

56. lets be honest ...

you cannot HEAR an explosion, you can only hear the SOUND an explosion makes. an entire floor of the building dropping onto the floor below will sound LIKE an explosion.so will steel bolts, beams and welds snapping apart.so will an earthquake sound like an explosion.(i know from experience)

[seatnineb]

57. This witness says floors did drop onto each other BEFORE the WTC fell.

In the words of William Rodriguez:

"On the 39th floor the police officer who was with me on the lower levels met me from the opposite stairwell ....there were 3 stairwells ....A,B and C ....and he came from the A staircase ...we met practically in front of...uh..the doorframe.He was with 2 firemen...and at that moment we were talkin' about what was gonna be the next course of action...when boom!....

We hear the impact of the other building....now we did not know that it was another plane because we were inside the stairwells..so we have no idea what was going on...we here the boom on the other building....

All of a sudden we here boom,boom,boom,boom,ba, ba!.....on our building!

And on the radio we hear "We Lost 65 ,we lost 65!"...meaning that the the 65th floor collapsed one floor on top the other,inside the building up to the skylobby which was the 44th floor.

[William Seger]

63. "THE witness?"

Good thing we had Rodriquez on the scene, or we'd never know what really happened, huh. :eyes:

[seatnineb]

64. Wow...another piss fuckin poor rebuttal............

Even though the impact of the plane was above

Wanna tell me how drywall flies up the strairwell.....

Although its spectacularly televised impact was above Elliott, at first he and those around him thought an explosion had come from below. An incredible noise - he calls it an "exploding sound" - shook the building, and a tornado of hot air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying UP the stairwell.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0917/p1s1-usgn.html

[William Seger]

66. I'm sure you already know the answer to that

So far, all I've seen from you is
If you want me to play games with you, you'll have to make it more interesting.

[seatnineb]

68. In other words you have no explantion....go on prove me wrong......

[William Seger]

75. In other words...

In other words, if you didn't get it the first dozen time -- just in this thread -- I suspect that one more time won't help. You want one more opportunity to say you still don't get it? Okay, here ya go, knock yerself out: Yes, there were jet fuel explosions in the elevator shafts and stair wells after the crash; and no, not all things that sound like explosions are caused by explosives. Now please do tell me how you still don't get it. That is soooooooooo facinating, I could just read about it all day long.

[seatnineb]

76. The witness in question thought that the explosion originated from below....

That would imply he did not hear what should have been the crashing noise/explosion from above (even though the witness was only 8 or so floors below the impact point) ....when the plane hit the building.

Gee.... that plane must have crashed/exploded into the South Tower so silently....and it's jet fuel must have leaked down the stairwells and elevator shafts so quietly that Elliot did not notice or hear it.....

But low and behold.....the resulting explosion from the ignited jet fuel that leaked down the stairwells and elevator shafts below Elliot's office.... was suddenly heard by Elliot....enough to decieve him into thinking that the explosion came from below.

Is that what you believe?.....why am I not surprised.

[Bolo Boffin]

77. Seatnineb: strawmen constructed while you wait

The jet fuel didn't leak anywhere quietly. It violently exploded down the entire length of the elevator shaft:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1907291&postcount=40

Why don't you try dealing with what we actually think happened based on testimony, instead of your convienent fantasies of what we think happened, based on your desperation?

[seatnineb]

82. Thanks for showing how you completely misunderstood my sarcasm.

Elliot heard the explosion from below:

Elliott, at first he and those around him thought an explosion had come from below. An incredible noise - he calls it an "exploding sound" - shook the building, and a tornado of hot air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying up the stairwell.

But the plane hit 8 floors above Elliot.

So how did Elliot not hear the explosion as the plane hit the building 8 floors above him?

I know that it is too hot for you to handle.

[William Seger]

81. That's fascinating

You're trying to infer something from what someone said he heard, but the guy didn't even hear the plane hit the building above? But this sharp-eared witness did hear an explosion below? Wow. That IS suspicous, ain't it.

> Gee.... that plane must have crashed/exploded into the South Tower so silently....and it's jet fuel must have leaked down the stairwells and elevator shafts so quietly that Elliot did not notice or hear it.....

Ah, I get it now: The plane must have crashed/exploded into the South Tower so silently....and then the controlled demolition charges went off below. And then an hour later, the tower fell.

At least this thread is getting more entertaining than I expected. Tell me more, Sherlock.

[seatnineb]

83. Well when a Boeing crashing into a building makes walls crack from the bottom up...

"In front of me, the wall split from the bottom up," he says.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0917/p1s1-usgn.html

So the walls failed to crack from the top even though the plane hit,crashed and exploded from above......

But the explosion caused by jet fuel leaking into lower portions of the bulding managed to cause the walls to split from the bottom up.....

Or maybe there was just an explosion from below in the South Tower as the Plane hit....much like the explosion Rodriguez heard from below when the 1st plane hit.

[William Seger]

84. Don't leave me in suspense! Crack the case!

Okay, so far, thanks to these sharp-eared witnesses Elliot and Rodriguez -- and of course the tell-tale split in the wall -- we know that no planes hit the buildings! Whoa, dude, something fishy about that, alright -- that's the main part of the "official story" and it didn't even happen? Wow. But huge bombs went off in both the basements? And then an hour to an hour-and-a-half later the towers fell.

Um, okay, but actually I'm all confused now. Is this the point where you say, "Elementary, William," and then explain all that so it makes sense? Please!

[seatnineb]

87. That that you are confused means we are making progress.....

In fact Elliot was on the 67th floor:

Then, as they(Elliot) reached the 70th floor, they heard an announcement: The building was secure. No one needed to evacuate.

One woman in the small group said to Elliott, "Do you want to believe them? Let's go!"

They had descended three more floors when United Airlines Flight 175 slammed into their own south tower like an arrow from a giant crossbow. It was 9:03 a.m.

That is 11 floors below the impact zone(floors 78-84..if I am not mistaken)

Yet Elliot believes that the explosion came from below the 67th floor....

at first he and those around him thought an explosion had come from below. An incredible noise - he calls it an "exploding sound" -shook the building,

You know.....I often wondered that if those local elevators that served the lower portion of the WTC had not been damaged.......the majority of fireman would have probably had a chance of getting to the impact zone.....to put out those fires.....and who knows.....the building may not have collapsed.

Get my drift....or perhaps not?

[Bolo Boffin]

88. So you admit that confusion is your goal in these discussions?

How frank of you.

:sarcasm:

[seatnineb]

90. William Segar is confused because he cannot fit the testimony of Elliot......

....into the parameters of the official story.

I have noticed that you are staying well clear of the subject.

I ain't surprised.

[Bolo Boffin]

91. You said you were making progress if Seger was confused.

Hey, just asking questions.

I notice you're staying well clear of Protocols of Zion.

[seatnineb]

98. That neither you or Segar have come up with a rebuttal to Rodriguez ..or

...Elliot speaks volumes......

[William Seger]

94. Of course I can. I already did.

We're working on YOUR plot now, and it seems to me it needs a lot of work. Oh, I understand the part about how that tell-tale crack in the wall means that no plane hit the building -- ah, the best laid plans! -- and certainly if they thought they heard an explosion "below," then that's conclusive proof there was a huge bomb planted in the basement. No doubt about that. And then the building fell down an hour later. But... no, I'm still confused about a lot of things, and it seems like your plot just gets more confusing as you go along.

> Get my drift....or perhaps not?

Perhaps not. Like those big fucking plane-sized holes in the buildings, and all the other witnesses and videos and pics and stuff, and why they timed bombs in the basement to coincide with the plane crash and then demolished the building an hour later from the top down. If you don't start tying up all these loose ends soon, I'm gonna get bored again.

[seatnineb]

97. You have still failed to explain how the explosion decieved Elliot

....into thinking it came from below.

Your jet fuel explanation just does not cut it......

Seems to be a common theme for some witnesses.......

Planes that hit high in a building that somehow cause witnesses
to think that the cause of the explosion comes from below......

In the Management Office on the 88th floor, the scope of the catastrophe was more evident. John Griffin Jr. and Charlie Magee also thought at first that an electrical substation had blown up.
http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029

And where was that electrical substation

Why it was nearly 50 floors down below where the plane had hit ofcourse

What Joe first believed was that an equipment room on the 43rd floor, which had an electrical substation, had blown up.
http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029

[William Seger]

100. Actually, you're the one coming up short in the explanation department

You prefer not to accept the obvious explanations for anything, but you can't come up with any explanations at all to fill in the gaping holes in the yarn you're spinning.

The End.

[seatnineb]

108. If the plane hit from above then why do people keep thinking it hit from below

You have the typical attitude of someone who believes the official story.....

If there is a witness who contradicts your version of events you ignore them.....

Too bad that there are quite a few witnesses that you have to ignore.....like this one who was in the Marriot Hotel adjacent to the WTC....

Note that this witness first saw and heard the vibration of the bulb tubes of the chandeliar in the room he was in shake......and then he hears a crashing sound and a roar:

The slow passage of a broad black "band" of temporarily unlit bulbs passed from the east end of the conference room chandelier to the west end, and it took several seconds to completely cross the room. The pattern was similar to the slow passage of a black band on a TV set when the vertical hold is slightly out of whack. Many of us looked at each other when this started, and the
"scientifically minded" were probably thinking about what sort of "harmonic frequency" disturbance might cause this strange pattern in the electrical system.

This pattern was quickly followed by the "tinkling" sound of the individual glass tubes hitting each other. Many of us looked at each other again, but more worried this time, as this indicated that it was a "physical" shock that was impacting the building rather than an electrical shock. Though somewhat worried, most participants acted at first as if the strange shock was over, and the speaker kept talking through the episode.

But before the tinkling sound stopped, and probably within three or four seconds of the first distraction, a series of crashing and screeching sounds started that seemed to be coming from the floor immediately above. These sounds were what you would expect if a bunch of conference room tables that had been folded up and set against each other tipped over, and crashed onto the floor one at a time, with assorted scraping metal causing the screeching. The sound was loud enough to cause the speaker to stop talking, but not loud enough, at that point,to prompt panic. In fact, it seemed for a second that the sounds had stopped,and that the speaker would try to say something lighthearted to re-focus the room.

But then -- and this was about six seconds into the event -- the sounds took a nasty turn. First there was a string of banging sounds that were much louder and deeper than the ones before, and that had the resonance of a huge catastrophe rather than falling furniture. Underlying the loud banging sound was an escalating roar, that also resonated with the building, and that you could feel through your feet and chair, as well as hear.
<snip>

But the later roar had a ferocity and depth that was at odds
with normal experience, and this likely made the noise seem much louder, and more horrific.

My guess is that others actually shared my series of very specific, and partly inaccurate, thoughts at that time. I immediately recalled the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, as I often did when I entered the Marriott hotel. My first thought was that Terrorists had set off a similar bomb at the bottom of one of the two towers, and that the horrible roar was the collapse of one of the towers.
http://www.nabe.com/am2001/englund.htm

William Rodriguez is not alone.

[William Seger]

154. Yeah, right.

> You have the typical attitude of someone who believes the official story.....

If there is a witness who contradicts your version of events you ignore them.....

That's almost too laughable to respond too, but you've definitely got the shoe on the wrong foot. Witnesses are frenquently wrong in both their perceptions or in their memories, and they frequently don't agree with each other. CTers are the ones who latch onto one or two witnesses simply BECAUSE their stories don't agree with 10 times as many other witnesses. But when witnesses disagree with the physical evidence, how much weight should their testimony carry? Here you've got a guy saying he "thought" the sound came from below, but he didn't hear the plane hit above? But then we've got physical evidence that there were jet fuel explosions in the elevator shafts, so maybe he did hear an explosion below and for some reason didn't hear the plane above. But no, you want to say that if this guy didn't hear anything above then no plane even hit the building and there must have been bombs in the basement (for some mysterious reason you haven't yet explained). Sorry, but that's simply idiotic, whether or not you appreciate why. And then you have the gall to say, "If there is a witness who contradicts your version of events you ignore them," when CTers ignore both a greater number of witnesses and the physical evidence if it doesn't agree with the witnesses they've decided to believe for no reason at all except that testimony is a better fit to their paranoid conspiracy speculations.

[seatnineb]

156. Wrong.

If you watch the Jules Naudet video of the 1st hit:

There is :

1)a dull thud/crash as the plane makes contact with the building.



2)Then there is the explosion and the corresponding sound of the explosion.


Naudet was filming from a mile away.....and the sound of that thud and explosion could be heard...even from that distance.

Yet the witness cited below who was in the building directly adjacent to the WTC does not here this same thud/crashing sound as the plane makes contact with the building.

Instead he first sees a quick blackout and then hears/feels a vibration:

In the words of Mike Englund:

Temporarily unlit bulbs passed from the east end of the conference room chandelier to the west end, and it took several seconds to completely cross the room.

This pattern was quickly followed by the "tinkling" sound of the individual glass tubes hitting each other

He then hears the crashing sound which corresponds to the Naudet thud:

In the words of Mike Englund:

But before the tinkling sound stopped, and probably within three or four seconds of the first distraction, a series of crashing and screeching sounds started that seemed to be coming from the floor immediately above.

And finally he then hears the explosion...which also corresponds with the sound in the Naudet explosion:

In the words of Mike Englund:

But then -- and this was about six seconds into the event -- the sounds took a nasty turn. First there was a string of banging sounds that were much louder and deeper than the ones before,

So what caused the vibration and temporary blackout then Will?

Maybe it was the repercussion of that explosion that Rodriguez felt and heard in the basement of the WTC itself...BEFORE the plane hit the building.


In the words of William Rodriguez:

It was an explosion on a mechanical room...because it was right below us"
http://911truthbristol.com/rodriguez.html

[petgoat]

103. I have a question for Mr. Rodriguez on that point of his tale

How did he know "We lost 65!" did not refer to Engine 65, which apparently was
buried in WTC2 rubble (located on West St. 50 yards north of Liberty).

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:g3c5Id5XuTkJ:graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110117.PDF+%22engine+65%22+collapse&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6

Here is apparent corroboration of Mr. Rodriguez's tale:

On the 37th floor, Daniel Sterling, of Engine Company 24, had stopped with firefighters from Ladder 5 and Engine 33—who did not survive—when the building rattled. A moment later, Firefighter Sterling said, Chief John Paolillo appeared.

''He thought there was a partial collapse of the 65th floor of our building and that we should drop everything and leave,'' Firefighter Sterling said.

Page 281 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC


'Get Up and Go, Go, Go'

A few floors below, around the 30th or 31st floor, Chief Paolillo was spotted again. ''He was yelling, 'Leave your equipment and just get up and go, go, go,' like that,'' Lt. Brian Becker of Engine 28 said. Chief Paolillo died.

If there was a collapse from 65 to 44, why did FEMA and NIST take no interest in this?

Can anyone explain how a collapse at 65 would have been generated when the impact was at 94 to 98
above the sky lobby at 76 and the reinforced machanical floor at 75-76?

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/godfrey.htm

[seatnineb]

109. Excellent find Petgoat...thanks. n/t

[William Seger]

155. He "thought" there was a collapse on the 65th floor?

Why did he "think" that (or did Sterling just think Paolillo "thought" that), and if it was reported on the radio as Rodreguez claimed, how come nobody else seems to "think" that now?

>If there was a collapse from 65 to 44, why did FEMA and NIST take no interest in this?

If...

[Contrite]

170. Survivor Eric Levine, 64th floor South Tower

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/americas/2001/day_of_terror/eyewitness/7.stm

Heard an explosion at 8:46 a.m. in HIS building.

Then, evacuated and:

'The building began to sink'

We had reached either the 51st or the 50th floor when we heard a huge explosion, which shook the building like crazy! I grabbed hold of the stairwell to steady myself when a women who had fallen from a flight up hit me in the back and sent me down a flight of stairs with her on my back.

I then tried to stand up but the building was still shaking and the lights were flickering on and off. It was terrifying! Then the building began to sink. That’s the only way I can describe it. The floor began to lower under my feet and all I could think about was that it would crack open and I would fall hundreds of feet to my death!

[Bolo Boffin]

31. Hi-quality version of ORIGINAL video

Before some desperate CTer pasted a fake "explosion" soundtrack on it:

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc2_south_below.mpg

[LARED]

32. Nice find (n/t)

[Kingshakabobo]

33. Check and Mate. nt

[seatnineb]

42. It is..... how so?

I don't hear 3 loud explosions on that tape:

We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.
...
We were standing in a circle in the middle of West Street. They were talking about what was going on. At that time, when I heard the 3 loud explosions, I started running west on Vesey Street towards the water. At that time, I couldn't run fast enough. The debris caught up with me, knocked my helmet off.
Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.)

I think that the audio on the tape that you think is authentic is fake.

[Make7]

46. Perhaps you should quote someone talking about WTC2 collapsing. ( n/t )

[seatnineb]

47. My mistake......but if you can find a video which features 3 loud explosions

....as the North Tower collapses....I might just retract that testimony.

Rick Siegel anyone?

[John Q. Citizen]

34. How do you know it was a CTer, and not an OCTer trying to discredit CTers?

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion, or is it a guess?

[William Seger]

35. Clue: Look at the other videos the douchebag has uploaded

[John Q. Citizen]

36. Did he leave a Koran at the bar too?

[William Seger]

38. Hey, you asked for evidence he's a CTer

Sucks to be you.

Here's another clue: That video is only slightly more dishonest than shit like Loose Change and 9/11 Mysteries.

[John Q. Citizen]

58. So you don't have any evidence, just your gut feelings about movies

you dislike?

My theory is he's one of your guys, and that's how and why you all caught on to a meme so fast.

Same with the anti-semetic overtones and occasionally blatent aspects of some people and sites who claim to be "inside jobbers." My bet is a good many of those sites are "inside jobs" as well.

[William Seger]

60. Really? Which ones?

Shouldn't you should warn your compatriots which sites to avoid?

[John Q. Citizen]

61. You seem to have a pretty good handle on which sites are to avoided,

William.

Maybe you could give a list?

[William Seger]

62. Oh no! You're not tricking me that easily!

Surely you know it's against Disinfo Agent regulations to reveal which sites are "inside jobs!" You much think I'm pretty dumb!

If you're willing to bet that some "truth" sites are really "inside job" sites, you really should warn your fellows which ones. Cat got your tongue?

[William Seger]

96. Aw, come on, John -- just a hint?

I mean, so you don't want to name and "inside job" sites -- I can definitely understand that -- but can't tell us a few key signs to be on the lookout for?

[seatnineb]

43. Nice to see desperate double OTC standards in full view.

Bolo has uploaded a Hi-Def audio from a 9/11 "truth" site.....

But that does not seem to bother you.....

And that video features what sounds like music at the beginning of it's segment.

And I don't hear an explosion in that Hi-Def video......

But this fireman at the scene certainly did.

You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.
Art Lakiotes -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.)

[greyl]

44. You're saying a train hit the WTC?

According to your eyewitness:

then it sounded like a freight train

an accelerating freight train?

rumbling and picking up speed

[seatnineb]

45. Well....I never knew freight trains made explosions.......

it sounded like a bunch of explosions. You heard like loud booms, but I guess it was all just stuff coming down,
William Wall -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)

I don't hear "a bunch of explosions" on the "authentic video".

[greyl]

48. The trains made stuff come down.

You heard like loud booms, but I guess it was all just stuff coming down,
William Wall -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)

Do you hear stuff coming down? Anything else?

[seatnineb]

49. But your audio does not feature "Booms" as that stuff comes down.

The so-called fake video does feature a boom as stuff comes down.

[greyl]

50. So your fake video corroborates your real eyewitness.

You heard like loud booms, but I guess it was all just stuff coming down,
William Wall -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)

:boring:

[seatnineb]

51. But your audio track does not corroborate the witness in question.

I don't hear any booms on the audio track of your video.

Any explanations why?

[greyl]

52. Your eyewitness says it was just stuff coming down.

Accelerating.
After a train hit it.

I haven't heard the video.

[seatnineb]

53. I don't here a bunch of explosions on your audio track........

when the south tower collapsed, and it sounded like a bunch of explosions.

William Wall -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.)

[greyl]

54. Your eyewitness says it was just stuff coming down.

and that it sounded like a freight train & booms during the collapse.
What a shock. We're not talking about TinkerToys.

[seatnineb]

55. This eye-witness says the 2nd plane sounded like a freight train........

When he was still on the BROOKLYN side, his company saw the second plane roar over their heads, “It sounded like a freight train,” he said. They watched that plane plow into Tower No. 2.

http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=3426

Gee...does that mean that the 2nd plane was a freight train.

Does it also mean that the sound of an explosion heard when the building collapses is also a freight train.

The plane is still a plane and the explosion is still an explosion(whatever the cause).

But the video which you claim is authentic does not feature the sound of an explosion.

Next.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. Dear Lord, the CTers did latch onto it, now, didn't they?

Maybe it's "OCTers masquerading as CTers" who supported the forgery once it was out. Maybe there's only one CTer in the universe with five Internet connections and a reprogrammed Alice robot talking to himself back and forth on all those message boards.

What's that thing Gandhi said?

First you argue with everyone else.
Then you argue amongst yourselves.
Then you call everyone else Freemasons in disguise.
Then you give it up and maybe get laid.

Something like that.

[John Q. Citizen]

59. It figues you would enjoy switching around Gandhi's words.

As to the motivations of the video poster, who knows?

Certainly not you.

[seatnineb]

65. That is OTC logic for you John........in a dimension of it's own. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

67. Almost as much as you guys enjoy defending this forgery. n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

74. I have neither defended nor derided the video. I haven't the expertise

to know if it is a forgery or not. We are different in that way, bolo.

[Bolo Boffin]

78. Expertise? Get over yourself.

You have a sense of hearing, don't you? Then you can tell that one of those videos was forged.

You have a sense of sight, don't you? Then you can tell one of those videos was around a lot longer than the other.

Voila! You have all the "expertise" you need to tell which one of those videos is a fake.

[mirandapriestly]

79. If you want to see a forgery

look at the "plane" with the missing wings melt into the wtc on 9-11. You know, the one that the witnesses didn't see...(unless they worked for CNN)

[Bolo Boffin]

80. Miranda, are you really an advocate of the "no-plane" hypothesis?

Or are you just offering moral support here?

[mirandapriestly]

86. I'm saying the videos were edited

something is wrong with whatever is supposed to be the "plane". It also differs drastically from the atc description of how the plane was supposed to have come in . What does it mean? I don't know...

[Bolo Boffin]

89. Miranda, are you really an advocate of the "no-plane" hypothesis?

It's an easy question to answer.

Are you saying that the plane in those tapes was not there when the tape was originally filmed?

If so, you are an advocate of the "no-plane" hypothesis.

Come on, you guys are supposed to be so good at inductive reasoning. Answer a question!

[mirandapriestly]

92. The videos appear to be edited. That does not necessarily mean that there are

"no planes", it could mean something else. There were also quite a few witnesses who appeared to be the more credible witnesses who said they did not see a plane, just an explosion. Why is it so important to you to label people? I guess it is all part of the "authoritarian" world view you people have.

[Bolo Boffin]

93. Go on, miranda. You know you want to.

All that inductive reasoning power is begging you. The more credible witnesses didn't see a plane, those videos have the "appearance of impropriety"...

Come on, make a stand!

[LARED]

95. Stop leading us on.

That does not necessarily mean that there are "no planes", it could mean something else.

Like what? It's easy to say "humm you never know, it could be something else." Haven't you formed any opinions after 5+ years?

There were also quite a few witnesses who appeared to be the more credible witnesses who said they did not see a plane, just an explosion.

Your kidding right? More credible? More credible that the dozens of live video on 9/11. More credible than the many thousands that WATCHED the plane impact the south WTC? Get real.

Why is it so important to you to label people? I guess it is all part of the "authoritarian" world view you people have.

What a cop-out remark. Come'on Miranda, let your "freak flag fly" as the old song goes. In order to have a serious discussion you need to let the world know what you believe. Labels be dammed.

[seatnineb]

99. Don't worry Miranda....LARED'S testimony falls at the 1st hurdle..........

So how many friends was it LARED?.......and how far were they?

In the words of LARED:
Sat Mar-20-04 08:47 PM
I personally know about two dozen people that watched flight 175 fly over their place of business in NJ and then saw it crash into the WTC. So unless holgrams can travel four or five miles and make really really loud noise, you've entered fantasy land.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

In the words of LARED:
Thu Dec-15-05 02:39 PM
I know a dozen people working in NJ that were watching the WTC fire from a roof top in Bayonne as the that plane passed overhead. They are located about 1.5 to 2 miles away from the WTC and watched it impact the building
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[LARED]

101. What do you think you have shown?

Two posts by me nearly 20 months apart that are slightly different.

The first one I said nearly two dozen. The second one I said a dozen. Big deal. The fact of the matter is I don't know exactly how many people were on the roof. I was not there, I am relaying second hand information. These are people I used to work with in Bayonne and spoke with many of them after 9/11. I know them. The know their honestly, I know they are not going to mistake what they saw and heard for some wild eyed fantasy about holographic images with sound flying through the sky.

If you want to believe crappolla about holographic planes zooming around the NY metropolitan area, have at it. Admitting you believe this makes me wonder what you won't believe. Shoot, I bet you believe Takfir wal-Hijra is a legitimate ideology

[seatnineb]

107. Rubbish...........

You said "you knew" a dozen then you said you knew "2 dozen".....

First you said they were 4-5 miles away....then you said 1-2 miles away.....

All told.....

You are nothing more than an anonymouse internet poster who claims to have friends who saw the 2nd plane hit.

....maybe your friends embellished their story....like this DU poster called Markses(now banned)...who first said that he only saw the explosion as the 1st plane hit:

Thu Mar-04-04 05:10 AM

Posted by Markses(to unknown)

Just then, I saw a young black man, very close to me looking up at the sky. He said “Holy fuckin’ shit!” and his face was contorted and there was the unbelievable rush of noise and then the loud explosion and I’m certainly not talented enough to convey the timing of all this, very fast, seemingly all at once, but I remember it as a chronological sequence, though I don’t feel it that way. I pivoted right towards the sky, towards the loud explosion, and saw the fireball burst from the building – huge – and close: the first hit (“The First One”), North Tower (World Trade Center 1), downtown Manhattan, U.S.A.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

He then told me personally 3 months or so later that he had in fact seen the plane itself:

Mon Jul-19-04 05:07 AM

Posted by Markses(to Seatnineb)

And I'll tell you this, friend: I saw a large passenger jet, almost certainly a 767, fly over my head at high speed and low altitude, and crash into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. With my own eyes I saw it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I see that when you and Bolo are desperate you try and change topic of the thread.... you wanna talk about fuck bag groups like Takfir wal-Hira?.........open up a new thread somewhere on DU and we will talk.

[LARED]

111. Pretty ironic

The guy that believes no planes hit the WTC is nitpicking.

As a non planer, I'm surprised you even believe Takfir wal-Hira groups exist. Believing that destroys some pet theories you cling too.

[seatnineb]

113. Second hand-anonymouse contradictory testimony like yours.......

.....hardly does the official story any favours now...does it.

Maybe those 9/11 Arab hijackers watched Armageddon......

After all that they managed to make Flight 175:

1)hit the South Tower just like the meotorite from Armageddon

2)hit the south side of the South Tower like the meotorite from Armageddon

3)hit at just above the 2nd sky lobby like the meotorite from Armageddon

[LARED]

114. What favors I am doing will be left up the

the rational world.

In the mean time, stick with the Armageddon theory, it suits you well. .

[seatnineb]

116. When witnesses say they did not see the plane but still deduce that

.........they did see the plane.....then your little world ain't so rational after all....

This witness only saw an explosion..........

And then I saw another flame go up. And from the television I could tell a plane, although I didn’t see the plane had come by to do it.
http://academic.csuohio.edu/tah/tremont/logs/McNulty121 ...

......but the above testimony does not stop this very same witness from deducing the following:

Then from the balcony I saw the second plane hit the building.
http://academic.csuohio.edu/tah/tremont/logs/McNulty121 ...

[LARED]

119. Your links don't work as usual

I cannot tell the context of the statements. Not that you would ever take something out of context :sarcasm:

[seatnineb]

122. Well here is another witness who did not see the plane........

...but still says he saw the plane!

It was at that point that I witnessed the second plane hit the south tower. It looked like a large bomb exploded in the building. I didn't see the plane, because I was about 6 blocks north of the complex.

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/KennyPliska.htm

[LARED]

126. I take it English is not your first language (n/t)

[seatnineb]

128. Another non-rebuttal of the year.....try harder. n/t

[LARED]

130. I was trying to be nice

It is obvious English is not your first language if you think the word witness is so inflexible a word.

[seatnineb]

134. "I witnessed the second plane hit" means he did not see the plane?

Please explain...although you probably can't

[LARED]

135. You can't be that dense

I rushed toward my office and stopped a block away to view the damage from the first plane. It was at that point that I witnessed the second plane hit the south tower. It looked like a large bomb exploded in the building. I didn't see the plane, because I was about 6 blocks north of the complex.

She was on the north side of the south tower. The plane hit the south side. She witnessed the explosion from the plane, but was unable to see the plane impact because it was on the other side of the building. What is your native language?

Witness can be a noun and verb.

http://www.answers.com/witnessed&r=67

[seatnineb]

138. Then the correct desciption would have been to say:

"I witnessed the explosion"

But to say "I witnessed the second plane" implies she saw the second plane.

You know this.

[LARED]

141. So what is your native language?

It is obviously not English, or you would not insist on this odd interpretation?

[seatnineb]

143. It is your interpretation that is odd.

According to you.......

Someone can witness an event without seeing this same event.

[LARED]

151. So what is the reason for this

You are really that dense or you a just playing silly games?

[seatnineb]

160. The reason is that if you witness something...you either see or hear it.

If you say you "witness a plane hitting" something...it implies that you see or hear the plane hitting.

But the witness in question NEVER saw the plane.....and NEVER heard the plane.

It is only because the witness would at some point later... find out that the explosion that he definetly witnessed was caused by a plane....that he has the confidence to say that he "witnessed the plane hit" the building.

But he never saw the plane.....so how many other witnesses are out there that NEVER SAW THE PLANE ..but because they saw the explosion.....say they saw the plane hit the building?

[LARED]

161. That was your point???

That she was speaking in past tense? That she did not actually see the plane hit the tower? Big deal. So what? You don't like her use of the word witness is what bothers you?

How many witnesses saw the plane impact the towers? Thousands. How many video tapes exist showing the plane hit the towers? Dozens.

The bottom line is if you want to believe in nonsense you are free to do so, but don't expect others to take no planers seriously.

[seatnineb]

162. I think you know exactly what my point is.

Some of the witnesses who claim to have seen the plane tell strange stories......

Frank Broughton, who works for the Bank of New York at 101 Barclay, saw the second plane hit from his office. "The plane came in, and then looked like it was trying to veer off. It was too late. I saw people jumping out the window to get out of the way."
http://www.gothamgazette.com/specialreport

Well if you can find a video which shows people jumping out of the windows as the plane approaches and hits the building.....I must just be inclined to believe this witness.

[LARED]

132. Also

If she was six blocks North of the south tower, it would be quite difiifuclt for her to see the plane impact or approach from the south.

If this is the best evidence you have for the no plane horse pucky you need pack your bags and head back to truther sites where they fall for this type of sophistry

[seatnineb]

137. Wrong.

Mr Arraki was on the corner of Greenwich st and Northmore...which is more than 6 blocks north of the WTC:

http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=m&q2=new%20york&q1=new%20yor&trf=0&lon=-74.009582&lat=40.716672&mag=2

That did not stop him from seeing the second plane:

Mr. ARRAKI: Yeah. I--I saw--yeah, I saw the second plane, it go boom. I--I heard, you know. I just wake up my head like that I saw the side, too.
http://66.159.17.51/cooperativeresearch/www/timeline/2001/abcnews091101.html

Next.

[LARED]

140. You need to make up your mind

Plane or no-plane?

What do you believe?

[seatnineb]

144. I don't believe the official story. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

145. What is it with this phobia you have about answering a simple question?

Do you believe a plane hit the tower? Yes or no?

[seatnineb]

147. Wow.....LARED's shift is coming to an end so BOLO can take over!

Let's just say I am keepin' an open mind.

[LARED]

152. Let me see if I understand

You have an open mind, but your mind is closed to interpreting this statement in no other way than

It was at that point that I witnessed the second plane hit the south tower. It looked like a large bomb exploded in the building. I didn't see the plane, because I was about 6 blocks north of the complex.

as someone that did and did not see the plane?

Quite the contradiction.

[seatnineb]

157. To witness something means you either see or hear it.

Nothing you can say refutes the fact to witness something implies that you either see or hear it.

The witness by his own admission never saw the plane......

"I didn't see the plane"

Yet still claims that he :

"witnessed the second plane hit the south tower"

So how many other people ONLY saw the explosion....but because they saw the explosion....infer that they saw the second plane hit the building?

[Bolo Boffin]

164. You strain at gnats yet have camel on the menu. n/t

[seatnineb]

167. Happy Christmas Bolo! n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

153. Brain On The Floor alert!

An open mind, huh?

A wiser person than you once wrote:

45 videos against them, all the witnesses against them, the forensics of the holes made in the buildings against them -- the fact that they have no recordings and no witnesses who where looking at the wall on the south side of the South Tower suddenly explode without a plane hitting it -- not one -- despite this...

...you still have an "open mind"?

[seatnineb]

158. Strange how you are shy to quote the source of that pathetic little statement.

Is it because that source is not permited here at DU?!

In fact that there are witnesses who were south of the WTC who did not see the plane as it hit the building:

Also strange that a city like New York which has millions of inhabitants.....can only produce 45 videos of the second plane hitting the building......

And even to this day.....the names and identities of the individuals who shot the majority of those 45 videos remains a mystery.

[Bolo Boffin]

163. The source remains wiser than you.

Another source far wiser than either you or Dick Eastman said something else appropriate to your incredible stance on the act of witnessing:

You blind guides, who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

I wonder what your point is in all of this. Yes, there exists a subset of people in New York who did not see the plane hit the building, but watched the explosion. This people remain witnesses of the "plane hitting the South Tower," even though they did not see the actual plane hit the building. They were aware of its aftereffects - they were there when it happened. And their testimony cannot be used to deny the testimony of another subset of people in New York that day, the subset of people who DID actually see United 175 fly into 2 World Trade.

Yet you continue to twist their words to deny, it seems, the very nature of witnessing. You make such a hash of everyone's statement, who can possibly believe what happened? Even though 45 videos exist of the event, even though people saw it happen, you feel that it's not enough.

Yes, people who did not see all parts of an event can still be witnesses to that event. They are secondary, yet they lend a strong hand of support to the primary witnesses and the video, and taken together, we can know from their testimony that this event happened - that the plane hit the building...

...just as we can know, from the testimony of people inside and outside the concentration camps, the enormity of the Holocaust. No one person was a witness to that entire event, but with their witness and the silent testimony of simple subtraction and the videos of the camps made by the liberators, we can know that the Holocaust happened. Blind guides do try to confuse the issues by negating or twisting the testimony to the Holocaust, but their efforts are straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

Seatnineb, take off the sunglasses.

[seatnineb]

165. I agree with the points you make Bolo......but.....

To witness an event means to hear or see said event.

If you did not hear or see the plane hit the building.....but you witnessed the explosion.....

Then you have no right to say:

"I witnessed the plane hit the building".

You do have the right to say:

"I witnessed(or saw) the explosion".

No doubt there are hundreds of witnesses who claim to have seen the plane approach and hit the building.....I have compiled up to nearly 100-200 or so testimony's from the internet to that effect myself........

But when you look at some of the stories of the people who DID see the plane:

Jeff worked near the Stock Exchange. The windows in his work area looked directly at the Towers. As he saw the second plane come in, he noticed the exact same view was being shown on the TV next to the window. CNBC had a camera pointing up outside his office. He saw the second plane hit in a surreal tandem view. Then, the buildings fell and everything went black.

http://hayduke72.diaryland.com/020912_15.html.

The above eye-witness is talkin' bullshit when he says he had an identical angle to what was being shown on TV:

There were only 2 live shots of the second plane hitting.

CNN(through WABC):


and Fox:


The above witness is clearly bullshitting when he says he had an identical view to what was being shown on NBC.

This was the NBC angle(which to the best of my knowledge) was not shown live(shown here courtesy of CNN):



As you can see the NBC angle is North of the WTC.

Wall street is to the South East of the WTC.

[Bolo Boffin]

166. You worry too much about these things.

I don't understand your point. You agree that a plane hit the building, don't you?

You agree that people did actually see it go in, don't you?

Why are you obsessed with this hyper-parsing of various testimonies?

[seatnineb]

168. Because a plane hitting a building is an extaordinary event.

And anyone who claims to have witnessed such an extraordinary event deseves to have the testimony scrutinized.

[mirandapriestly]

102. LOL.That's kind of like how it went from millions of witnesses

to dozens....Lareds needs to get their stories straight....

[Bolo Boffin]

104. "that he knew"

Miranda, you left out the qualifier that makes everything make sense. Why?

[LARED]

105. What are you babbling about?

millions of witnesses to dozens

No where have I stated that.

You still seem unable to decide if you are a no-planer or not. You don't even have a story. After five years you have not formed an opinion as to whether the planes were real or not? How could someone a bright as you not have formed a theory?

[John Q. Citizen]

106. Lared's words are pretty inconsistent about the number of people he claims

to have hear say evidence from, as well as the distance he claims these people were from the WTC.

It appears the fanatsy land he talks about is of his own device. Maybe he should check Yahoo Maps and find out how far away he thinks these people actually were and figure out how many people he thinks he talked to before trying to convince us of anything.

Otherwise, why should any rational person belive a word he says or have any way of knowing which of his words to believe?

[seatnineb]

110. Agreed! n/t

[LARED]

112. Good point

about convincing rational people. No planers do not qualify as rational.

[John Q. Citizen]

115. Now you are a Soviet psychiatrist as well as an expert witness on what

x and y number of people saw from x and y miles away?

You practice Internet mental health diagnosis based on acceptance or rejection of a hypothisis?

And you see that as all just normal and reasonable LARED?

Wow.

[seatnineb]

117. Yeah...when "rational people" can't decide on how many friends

....they have who saw the second plane hit and how far these same friends were from the event then I guess I have to pity rational people!

[LARED]

120. Of course you will continue to misrepresent what I said

Typical faith based scientific tactic. You have nothing else.

[seatnineb]

123. Rubbish...I merely quote what you did say....you are talkin' bullshit and you know it.

[LARED]

125. Pig snot, You are being dishonest, about what I said

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=129344&mesg_id=130117

Two posts by me nearly 20 months apart that are slightly different.

The first one I said nearly two dozen. The second one I said a dozen. Big deal. The fact of the matter is I don't know exactly how many people were on the roof. I was not there, I am relaying second hand information. These are people I used to work with in Bayonne and spoke with many of them after 9/11. I know them. The know their honestly, I know they are not going to mistake what they saw and heard for some wild eyed fantasy about holographic images with sound flying through the sky.

[seatnineb]

127. I quoted exactly what you said. Your testimony is null and void n/t

[LARED]

129. Shocking, You continue to misrepresent what was said.

Have you no moral boundaries?

[seatnineb]

131. Still defending the indefensible.Your anonymouse, contradictory ,second

..hand testimony is null and void.

I like the term....slightly different.

First you say know 24 people who are 4-5 miles away.

Then you say you know 12 people who are 1.5 - 2 miles away.

Those are big differences.

[LARED]

133. Enjoy you sophomoric sophistry

I'm not going to continue to debate this issue.

[seatnineb]

139. Because your testimony does not stand up to scrutiny.

The fact that it was 20 months apart matters not.

You changed significant parts of your story...for whatever reason.

Your testimony is null and void.

[LARED]

142. Here's a clue

As second hand information, within twenty months I could have narrowed my facts a lot.

But you are not interested in this. Tell it to someone that cares about your dishonest views.

[seatnineb]

146. LARED it is pointless to say "it is second hand" information.

You never bothered to say it was second hand information in either 2004 or 2005....but now you are cornered you use the ultimate get out clause.

"It was only second hand information"

LOL!!!

[LARED]

149. Again your lack of knowledge about the English language betrays

you. My original statements without doubt indicate I was speaking about second hand knowledge.

So seriously what is your native language. I can only draw the conclusion you purposefully misrepresent what people say or English is not your native tongue and you are not intimate enough with English to interpret it properly.

Which is it?

[seatnineb]

159. You are insistent.

Your original statements indicate that you were speaking about second hand information?.....I don't think so.

You said you knew "about" 24 people on the roof:

In the words of LARED:
Sat Mar-20-04 08:47 PM
"I personally know about two dozen people"

Then you say you only know 12 people on the roof:

In the words of LARED:
Thu Dec-15-05 02:39 PM
"I know a dozen people "

Then you say it was all second hand information..and you NEVER knew how many people were on the roof:
In the words of LARED:
Sat Dec-23-06 12:49 AM
"The fact of the matter is I don't know exactly how many people were on the roof. I was not there"

Your contradictory statements are there for all to see.

[LARED]

118. Are you a no planer?

I'm curious as to why someone would consider the faith based no-plane theory rational? (BTW this is not about mental health)

I understand people believe in the supernatural. There is rational and irrational elements of this depending if the belief falls within the laws of nature. But the no plane believers simply have no rational basis for their faith. There is no technology available to create a hologram with sound that punches holes in the side of steel structures while being seen by many thousands of people from manifold directions. No mater how you analysis it no-plane theory are irrational.

This does not mean they are mentally ill, they just have irrational beliefs.

[mirandapriestly]

121. An OCT who is dishonest???NO!!!eom

[LARED]

124. Welcome back Miranda

You have so many questions left unanswered.

Why?

[mirandapriestly]

148. what haven't I answered Lareds?

and I don't realy come there to post with those who try to prevent discourse, so I don't
t owe you anything. Your side is the one who refuses public debate.

[LARED]

150. I'd love to discuss with you

your no-plane vs something else notion.

See here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=129344&mesg_id=130104

[SidDithers]

169. C'mon, Lared, IJCers don't have opinions...

they only "ask questions" or "stimulate discussion".

And you're right. It's a freakin' cop-out.

Sid

[William Seger]

85. Oboy!

Speaking of frauds, though, do you have a link to the one that doesn't even show a plane? That's my favorite.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rodmant]

171. timestamps, & md5sum or sha1sum checksums of video files

Why not ask video publishers to
display md5sum or sha1sum (better) checksums of video files,
along with a creation timestamp? This would not by itself prove the video
was un-doctored but it's a start - changing any single byte in a file,
is almost guaranteed to change the sha1sum.

OK, I jumped in.. I'll probably not post again in this thread.