Look at this and try to be objective

[mirandapriestly]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdkyk1up4ZA
It's from youtube of "As It Happened". The worst part, other than the witnesses, is that the plane doesn't show up at first, so they keep "re-racking" (retracking?) it until they get it.

There are a couple of witnesses, Theresa Renault and Richard Davis, she is about a mile away he is about 4.5 miles away, he is also a lawyer for the oil and gas industry. You can read about them here:
http://911logic.blogspot.com/

Basically, they couldn't have seen what they described from where they were. I've noticed from watching a lot of these videos that there are very few witnesses who were close to the scene, the close witnesses never see a plane, only the far ones do and they usually have some sort of conflict of interest(work for the media)
at 3:00 Theresa says "Oh my god another plane hit the building", but she said this at the same time as the fireball appears. If she saw a plane she would have said it before that, plus she was on the opposite side. It looks like she is saying what she sees on the tv screen, not in real life. Then afterward they show footage, a replay. The first time it is zoomed in too close to see a plane (they couldn't see a plane coming and zoom out? They had the camera trained on it.) See the 911logic analysis of Renault. (above)
Gumbel says "re-rack the tape" at 4:56 and there is the explosion with no plane (sort of a blur thing, then he says "rerack" it again at 5:46 they aren't any closer and they add more of a blur in, then a third time, each time there is more "plane"., Do you guys buy this? come on! it isn't live either, it's added after the fact, a little bit more at a time.
btw, they are editing out whatever is on the face of the north tower but you can still catch a little explosion at 5:20.
Gumbel: "yeah, we see it right now, there's a plane impacting right now" on the 2nd or 3rd time, after they show the footage with nothing or a little blur. Next witness:
Richard Davis says he saw it come straight up the Hudson from 4.5 miles to the north and go straight in. Well, it was descending rapidly and it did not go straight up the Hudson, so this is not true either. They can't find anyone close up who sees it, I've seen this in all the networks and footage. Then at 7:37 they finally get some kind of plane looking thing, but it's not live, and keep in mind these guys are using high quality cameras. This is the best they can do? also the vantage point is the same so why would the plane "start to appear"? and witnesses can see all the details of the plane but the camera can't? The camera is closer than the witnesses.
The second guy is saying how deliberately the second plane was flown, but he is like 5 miles to the north!
Renault describes flames coming out of the window, etc, she is at least a mile away can she see that?
Notice how they say how "deliberately" it was and announcers on other channels also say "deliberately", it is part of a script. The first one is maybe an accident, maybe not a plane, then the second is "deliberate" ALL the networks do this, even Bush did the "thought that was a bad pilot" thing. It was scripted!

From 911logic (above) :
However, once again, I really don’t care about the “first plane” anyway. What makes Richard’s “eyewitness account” so impossible are his statements about the “second plane.” At about 7:50 VRT, Richard declares “We saw the second one come up the Hudson and veer into the second building.”

This is truly amazing. Not only were these people able to spot the “second plane” coming toward them from over 4 miles away (remember the 16ft fuselage diameter), once again Richard was able to determine with great certainty that “there appeared to be nothing wrong with the aircraft” and that “it was flown very deliberately into the building.” These statements are absolute hokum.

[greyl]

1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

Ask any scientific expert that you respect, and I'm sure they'd confirm as much.

It would be more odd if all of the eyewitness accounts matched. That they differ wildly should be no surprise.

Faulty memory, mistaken perception, dishonesty, and insanity all need to be considered as possible influences of particular eyewitness testimony.
What are you saying the cause is?

[mirandapriestly]

3. I think they are reading a script or being coached

This is after hours and hours of watching CNN, Faux, and all of the major news footage from that day with people saying the same things, and PATTERNS showing up simultaneously on different networks.

The people on the ground are adamant that there was no plane, just an explosion, but then people from over a mile a way describe it in detail right down to the motivations of the pilot. Next time you are outside or if you have a view look a mile away, would you notice a plane and what it was doing that far away? and these people are all over a mile away . They would have had to have seen the plane FIRST, because there was no time after the explosion, which makes it all the more unlikely. No one would have noticed anything until the fireball and by that time there was no plane, it disappeared That is why only close up witnesses make any sense. And most of the close up witnesses said there was an explosion only and are baffled by the plane.

But it isn't just the witnesses, it's the footage. Better footage shows up after 9-11, but by that time there was time to fake it more convincingly. You can't look at those planes and not have doubts.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. One problem is for anyone close to the 'action'

especially in NYC is that your field of view is very limited depending on where you are.

Someone on the north side of the Towers, would have no clue what hit the south side, even though they might have only been a block away. However someone standing on the Jersey side of the Hudson would see a lot more of the event.

On the other hand, someone claiming that they watched the plane fly down the Hudson may not be credible, because Flight 175 didn't come into the city from that direction. (That's assuming the official flight path is correct.)

[HamdenRice]

6. Very important point

The second plane hit the south tower from the west. If you were standing to the east of the towers, the towers would have blocked your entire view of the second plane as it swung around New York Harbor. All you would have seen would have been the fireball exploding on the southwest side of the south tower.

As for seeing planes miles away, that is normal. If you drive down the Belt Parkway between Brooklyn and Queens that skirts Kennedy airport, you can see a steady stream of planes coming in from the west. Each plane is miles apart, but you can often see as many as a half dozen lined up over Brooklyn, the harbor and New Jersey far into the distance.

BTW, I was in lower Manhattan on 9/11 and heard the first plane scream low over my building. My window looked out toward 6th Avenue (Avenue of the Americas) and I definitely heard the directional sound of the plane going down sixth avenue from north to south, ending in a gigantic explosion.

[mirandapriestly]

18. This shows what she would have been able to see

http://911logic.blogspot.com/2006/12/911-eyewitness-report-cards_05.html
I used to live in NYC, my boyfriend lived in Tribeca and you could see the WTC from the roof. Even from there it was quite far and you would not really be able to see a detailed plane, and that is closer than either of these witnesses. A person can see little specs, but they aren't going to notice and be able to describe in detail what a plane was doing.
There was one reporter Dick Oliver who is in some of the broadcasts who is saying there might not be planes some are reporting a missile and he gets cut off.
I wish people would just LOOK at the footage and see for themselves how bad it is, there is nothing to argue about or "discuss", the footage is bad, the witnesses don't hold up under scrutiny.

[Grateful for Hope]

2. Eyewitness testimony can be very unreliable

but, when there is a consensus among eyewitnesses, then, the resulting testimony can be quite reliable.

Testimony and evidence are never black-and-white despite efforts to make them so.

[hack89]

5. What do you consider consensus?

80 percent agreement? 10 percent?

[MervinFerd]

11. Not per cents, I think. Reliability, location, coherence.

Witnesses will each have a better or worse perspective. Better or worse comprehension and credibility.

"Consensus", I think, has to to with creation of a coherent picture. If the reliable witnesses all have stories make sense considering their positions and the events, then there is "a consensus". That eyewitness evidence is also consistent with vast other evidence.

There will always be some weird stories. But these will not fall into any coherent pattern--there are people who did not see the plane, or said they saw the plane but could not have. But there is no -pattern- of witnesses who report a coherent alternative to a plane. No group of witnesses report seeing a flying saucer heading toward the towers, for example.

[mirandapriestly]

7. Look at the footage people

at 3:00 you see a fireball only. The cameraman didn't see "a plane" coming, but Theresa Renault" (in a building that used to be used for media), and is several miles away, can? Then Gumbel asks the cameraman to see the plane and we see him do a "replay" with no plane (maybe an imperceptible blur), "no plane" says Gumbel let's "rerack" it, then they show it again with a stronger blur at 4:56, not good enough, so he asks him to "re rack" (retrack?) it again - then we see a little object that looks like a bug from the SAME viewpoint!!! so they have inserted the plane right in front of us! Use your brains, it's a fake plane! the cameraman doesn't leave the vantage point, they are showing the SAME footage added in a fake plane and wescam cameras have that capability.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. You might have a point, except...

people saw that airplane! Lots of people saw that airplane!

People recorded that airplane!

It WAS an airplane!

[mirandapriestly]

13. Most of them did not see an airplane, if you would

watch the footage you would see that. The only ones who did were calling from MILES away and were often connected to the media. You can tell from looking at those "planes" that they are faked. They are all different from one another, they are missing wings, and tails, and they are coming in level when the plane was supposed to have been descending at 5000 feet a minute or something like that _ a power dive. Watch the video you can see them add in the plane, but you won't you want to hold on to your religious belief in the planes.

[MervinFerd]

8. So Miranda, is Today Thursday? Are you SURE?

I have 3 witness who will -swear- it is Friday!

Who you going to believe, your stinking calendar, or my 3 absolutely reliable witnesses?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

12. I don't believe in the same date system as Bushco

You only do because a man in a suit came out and said it on CNN. I am not the one supporting Bushco by using the same days of the week as he.

I use the following days of the week system:

Monday
Wednesday
Thursday
Thursday again
Bank Holiday
Domingo
Feast of Saint Sir Willups Brightslymoore

DISPROVE it.

[mirandapriestly]

14. bzzzzzt...zap

ah, a vicarious bug zapper

[johnnie]

10. If you watch the footage when the second one hits...

Just pause it and scroll it, you can see the plane. I'm not talking about when they re-track the film, at about 2.52, you can see the plane right before the explosion.

[mirandapriestly]

15. I know what I see, that's no plane,

it's a blur which becomes more detailed each time they "retrack" it. I said you can see a blur, a blur is not a plane. It's obvious what they are doing there. How did he turn that blur into a plane ? Nothing else changes but that little speck of a "plane", so it's not like he is focusing it or something. It changes very noticeably. Each time it becomes more and more detailed. And when there is that fireball and the "witness" Theresa Renault says oh my God another plane just hit, she says it AFTER the fireball. IOW, after the alleged "plane" would have already been out of sight! If she saw a plane, why didn't the camera man zoom out to catch it? Also she was in the north and she said she saw it fly right in to the south tower, the 2nd "plane" entered from the south.
The other witness (who is a lawyer for the oil and gas industry btw), says he saw it hit the south tower from 5 miles away and to the north. That is not possible. Look out your window 5 miles away and tell me you'd notice a plane that far and be able to describe what it was doing. PLUS he said it went up the Hudson which is a lie.

[mirandapriestly]

16. You are talking about with the fireball sorry

yes, there is a blur, but it is way too low to have hit where it was supposed to. I didn't even notice that before, that makes it even more phony.

[Big Pappa]

17. This is

almost a good as the missle pod theory a couple years ago.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. I believe it comes from the same source: the WebFairy

It was just incredible to see people denying that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and now this.

[Big Pappa]

20. And

yet I am still waiting for all the passengers on those 4 flights to let me know where they are.