Direct challenge to "planehuggers"...

[Blocked]

Can even one of you produce a single news reporter reporting live on the ground that saw or heard a passenger plane hit the South Tower?





PS - I won http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=208946&mesg_id=208998">SDuderstadt's challenge.

[Bassman66]

1. Irrelevant

Why do you want reporters on the ground?
There are 40+ videos of the second impact showing a plane.
There are none showing an explosion and no plane (except for the ones from the other side of the building).

It makes no sense to fake a second impact with so much attention on the buildings after the first.

There were planes.

[Blocked]

10. I want reporters live on the ground as the 'crash' happened

because their microphones should pick up the sound of the plane's engine and we get to hear what the reporter says as it happens, NOT after the fact.


If a real plane hit the South Tower with "all eyes focused on WTC," then it shouldn't be too hard to produce ONE TV reporter reporting live on the ground as it happened.

[Bassman66]

13. You've got 40+ videos showing the impact

and none showing an explosion and no plane.

How did they know they could control that? This was 20 minutes after the first and thousands were watching "live". The supposed fakers would have zero control of that situation.

There was no fake.

It would be much easier to smash a plane into the building in the first place.

[HamdenRice]

2. I was there. I heard the first plane.

It flew over my building, and I heard an incredibly loud jet engine sound, and then I heard a loud boom when it hit the north tower.

My first thought was, "that sounds like a fighter jet doing a bombing run in Manhattan." I had the radio on while I worked and heard about a plane hitting the WTC.

I went downstairs, and looked down town (south) and saw the north tower burning. A guy was standing there, and he said he saw the plane fly so low over my building that he thought it was going to crash into my building, and he saw it crash into the WTC.

Sorry, but a plane flew over lower Manhattan and hit the WTC. And I'm not an OCTer.


On edit: This applies to the first plane.

[leftofthedial]

3. so you heard a fighter jet?

not a passenger plane?

[sabbat hunter]

4. no

he said he heard what SOUNDED like a fighter jet. a passenger plane flying at high speed at low altitude would sound very loud, like a fighter jet.

[SDuderstadt]

8. Damn...that reminds me....

it's not at all relevant, but when I was a kid growing up in Dayton, Ohio, the B-52's from Wright-Patterson AFB would take off right over my grandmother's house, The noise was deafening.

[leftofthedial]

15. he didn't say he heard a passenger jet flying low. he said he thought he heard

a fighter jet

at what point and based on what info did he decide that wasn't what he heard?

[jberryhill]

26. Impressive

You know, it's one thing for people to nitpick over casual statements made to reporters and then printed in newspapers seven years ago.

It's quite another thing to do this sort of bizarre textual analysis when the person who wrote the words is sitting right here.

[leftofthedial]

32. that's why I asked

that's why even HR felt the need to clarify his post.

What if he HAD heard a fighter jet? His original post did not exclude that possibility.

the only bizarre textual analysis happening here is those of you who read more into HR's post than was there, read more into my post than was there, then subtract the two and use the imaginary difference to criticize my arithmetic.

[SDuderstadt]

7. If it was a "fighter jet"...

there would be corresponding wreckage. Of course, not a single piece of a fighter jet was found.

[nebula]

41. Nor a single piece of commerical airliner

[SDuderstadt]

42. Bullshit, nebula....

Debris from commercial airliners was found at every site.

[nebula]

43. Got a link?

[LARED]

47. Sure

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/WTC767images/panel+wheel.jpg



http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=45

[Flatulo]

50. Sweet Jesus, we've given you links dozens of times. You've seen

every picture of aircraft debris on the net.

Why do you play dumb?

Do you just do this to waste peoples' time?

[HamdenRice]

20. Let me clarify the fighter jet thing

I heard very loud jet engines screaming overhead moving from my right to my left, ie north to south - my window faced east.

The only reason that my mind said fighter jet is that I heard this explosion right after that. It was a thought based on that sound pattern you see in war movies -- "vroom," "boom"!

When I went downstairs to the street, the guy who said he saw the plane definitely said it looked like a jet airliner, and did not say anything about a fighter jet.

In retrospect, I wish I had stayed down on the street a few more minutes to see the second hit, but unbelievably I was so focused on work, I went back upstairs and went back to what I was doing.

[jberryhill]

21. It's a good thing you didn't say

"It sounded like a locomotive" or else LOD would be convinced it must have been a locomotive.

It's amazing how concrete some folks are.

[SDuderstadt]

23. It's not "amazing" how concrete some folks are....

it's actually scary. I wonder how they actually navigate life and deal with the nuanced world we live in.

[leftofthedial]

24. you are thick as a blank phonebook

I never said it WAS a fighter jet. I asked HR if what he heard was a fighter jet, not a passenger jet, WHICH IS WHAT HE SAID IN HIS POST.

you do speak English, don't you?

[jberryhill]

25. I can read English too

And, assuming that most people can't really identify an aircraft by the sound of the engine, then when someone says:

My first thought was, "that sounds like a fighter jet doing a bombing run in Manhattan."

Because hearing ANY type of aircraft come in low and fast over Manhattan would probably not inspire someone to think:

"that sounds like a hi-jacked passenger aircraft on an unauthorized course"

One would probably think it is out of the ordinary, due to the fact that passenger aircraft don't normally fly fast at low altitude over Manhattan.

He heard an airplane and thought what he said he thought. Asking "did you hear a fighter jet or a passenger jet" on the subject of an auditory memory seven years ago, in response to a normal English statement like that, doesn't fill in many pages of that phone book.

[leftofthedial]

29. asking the questions I asked was perfectly reasonable given HR's post.

He said he thought he heard a fighter jet. I asked if that's indeed what he heard. His further response in clarification VALIDATES my asking the question.

Being blind to the truth is not much of a stretch when one is blind to simple reality.

[jberryhill]

30. Okay what would you ask this person:

http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/123007/news_20071230044.shtml

When Katrina slammed into New Orleans in 2005, Fleetwood and his police unit manned their post at the Marriott Hotel across the street from the New Orleans Convention Center on the bank of the Mississippi River.

"When it came in, it sounded like a locomotive, it really did," Fleetwood said.


You think maybe a locomotive went through the Marriott Hotel, and he chalked it up to something else?

[leftofthedial]

31. No one mistook Hurricane Katrina for a train.

That is a silly question.

Saying "when (the hurricane) hit it sounded like a locomotive" is a simile. (Since you probably don't know what a simile is, look it up here. The person did not say "I thought I heard a train," which might have prompted a search for a washed-away train somewhere in NOLO. A tornado or a hurricane is often said to sound like a locomotive.

HR said "I thought I heard a fighter jet," which led me to ask if he indeed did hear a fighter jet. He didn't say "I thought I heard a passenger jet." He specifically said he thought he heard a fighter jet. It was not until his later post that he made clear what he heard.

You are flogging not a horse, not a dead horse, but a cloud that only you believe is even shaped like a horse.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Are you SURE it's a cloud???

How do you know it isn't a CHEMTRAIL??? Aaaiiieee!

[leftofthedial]

34. because there are no chemtrails

[SDuderstadt]

35. Oh.

Do your fellow "truthers" know that? I think you're begging for excommunication here.

[leftofthedial]

36. I don't have any "fellows."

Nor do I have a religion from which to be excommunicated.

[SDuderstadt]

37. It's a "figure of speech".....

nuance is a bitch, huh...

[leftofthedial]

38. you'd know much more about the bitchness of nuance than I

I always found it to be sweet, pliable and endlessly fascinating.

so I'll take your word for it.

[SDuderstadt]

39. Good....

Glad we settled that.

[jberryhill]

27. And now....

LeftOfTheDial is going to suggest that people like that were posted on the street to deal precisely with people like you who walked out and said "What was that?" Because LoD will explain that you really did hear a fighter jet, and the guy on the street played a Jedi Mind Trick on you.

Oy.

[SDuderstadt]

28. The more I listen to the way the CT's think the "inside job" unfolded...

I have to wonder if they ever keep any sort of tally as to how many conspirators had to be involved to pull it off. It has to be in the thousands if not tens of thousands. Of course, that's far more plausible than "19 arabs with boxcutters", right? Right?

[HamdenRice]

40. OK, now I have to clarify my clarification

I realize it may be hard to believe I remember this in such detail, but it was a kind of Pearl Harbor/Kennedy shot day for me.

As the plane engine sound was getting louder and louder, I was becoming somewhat alarmed, but did not think "fighter jet." It wasn't the jet engine noise that made me think "military jet."

It was the explosion that made me think "fighter jet" because no other planes drop bombs.

Then I immediately dismissed the idea.

[seatnineb]

46. Which building did you work in Hamden? n/t

[HamdenRice]

48. I wasn't in the WTC complex

I was in lower Manhattan about 1/4 mile north about a block off Avenue of the Americas, which ran directly down to the North Tower.

[Flatulo]

5. Here's one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BPZV3EgwtA

[SDuderstadt]

6. So far, the score appears to be....

"plane-huggers" 1
"no-planers" 0

[Blocked]

9. Funny, I didn't hear the sound of a plane in her microphone

as she was "reporting live from the ground".

[Flatulo]

11. You're moving the goalposts.

Did you watch the whole video? She was reporting about an event that had happened moments earlier.

She clearly stated that she both heard and saw an airpplane crash into the WCT2 building.

What is it about this account that does not satisfy your challenge?

[SDuderstadt]

12. You're trying to reason with a "no-planer", Flatulo...

I wish you luck.

[Flatulo]

14. I know - I had resolved to not respond to this stuff, but I'm bored today.

[SDuderstadt]

16. Ummm, no you didn't...

not even close. Nice try.

[2rth2pwr]

17. No, because it was a fighter jet that crashed into the towers.

[SDuderstadt]

18. Right.....then someone mysteriously ....

planted 757 pasts all over the place, yet forget to plant fighter jet parts.

[2rth2pwr]

19. Why do you say mysteriously?

[SDuderstadt]

22. Because it's a stupid claim

I was being sarcastic.

[Blocked]

44. No reports of seeing or hearing a plane crash while reporting live on TV?

Amazing.

[SDuderstadt]

45. I'm pretty sure that Aaron Brown was reporting live on CNN when...

tje second plane hit, but I'd have to find it. You know, actually I'm not even going to look for it because there are plenty ot witnesses who actually saw the plane hit. The "no-planes" theory is such bullshit, it's self-debunking.

[Realityhack]

49. 'planehuggers'

Elevating the debate with your impeccable logic?

You are implying that if there is no live news footage you will continue to think their was no plane but if footage is found you will change your mind?

I call BS. I think you would just try to find a way to 'debunk' the footage. Their are hundreds of eye witnesses and loads of video evidence of the second plane hitting.

Not necessarily to you directly but...
What is it about a plane hitting the tower that people can't handle? Why come up with a million different theories that it was something else when their is so much evidence as to what happened?
isolating it just to the second plane hitting the second tower... how do people deny that?