WTC1 Witness Reports
Reproduction And Analysis Of Claimed “Flight 11” Witness Reports And Recordings
Introduction
In this article
we will reproduce and analyse reports from witnesses who claim to have seen an
aircraft striking Tower 1 of the former World Trade Centre Complex on the
morning of September 11th at approximately 8:46am.
Part 1 – Witness Reports On 911
“Libby Clark”
"...I believe it was a passenger plane, it was
relatively large, I mean it wasn't the size of a jet,
but...er...it was not a small, small plane. Like a [unrecognisable].”
From a live ABC / 7 news report at Tuesday 11 September 2001 recorded
prior to 9:03 am.
Karim Arraki
“I saw it come up from
the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside,
a small plane….no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach
the people to pilot plane, small plane, you know, it was that kind of
plane….yes, going into the building, and I never saw that plane before.
It's like something, I don't know, it's like they work with the motors, I
never saw a plane like that before!”
From an ABC News Special Report at 9:08 am on Tuesday 11 September
2001.
“Stuart”
“I was waiting a table
and I literally saw a, it seemed to be a small plane. I just heard a
couple of noises, it looked like it like ‘bounced’ of the building and then I
heard a, I just saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed
to simmer down….it just seemed like a smaller plane, I don’t think it
was anything commercial…”
From a Bryant Gumble CBS News Special Report at 8:52 am on Tuesday
11th September 2001.
“Dog Walking Woman”
“We’re walking the dogs
and we saw a plane flying really low, a jet, a small jet, and it flew
directly into the World Trade Centre. And then all the pieces fell to the
bottom…in seconds.”
From
Fox News.
Narrator On
The Mi Kyung Heller Video
"Hey Grandpa, I'll
tell you what woke me up. They bombed the World Trade Centre. I'm looking at it
and Mi-Kyung's video taping it. Terrible. I heard,
Grandpa, I saw it. It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb...a
missile...er...this could be world war three."
From “In Memoriam:
Jane Derenowski
Reporter:
“Jane you said you saw the
first plane, did you get a, a, glimpse of what kind of plane that was? We were
told it was a small commuter plane.”
Derenowski:
“Well, it, it looked, it
wasn’t a Cessna or anything like that. It was a [unrecognisable] plane, a
midsize plane and we could hear it very low…then it veered drastically on
its side thought the building and then went into the upper floors.”
Recorded
live from NBC Television on Tuesday 11th September 2001 prior to the collapse
of WTC2 at approximately 9:59am.
Sean Murtagh
“I just witnessed a
plane that appeared to be cruising at slightly lower-than-normal altitude
over
From CNN Live. Murtaghs statement appears to have been recorded
between the times of 8:46am and 9:03am on Tuesday 11th September 2001. Image
taken from "CNN Tribute - America Remembers" - Produced by Ken Shiffman and Brian Rokus. 2002 Cable News Network. Sean Murtagh was the Vice President
of Finance and Administration at CNN during 9/11.
“Spear” Witness
“…it came in…like a…like
a…(unrecognisable)…like a…like a…like a spear. It just
speared through the building.”
From "CNN Tribute -
“In Distress” Witness
“The plane was slightly on its side
and that's why, maybe think, maybe it, it was in distress..."
From "CNN Tribute -
Chief Joseph Pfeifer
“…we have a number of
floors on fire, it looked like the plane was aiming towards the building,
transmit a third alarm…”
From "9/11 - The Filmmakers Commemorative DVD Edition" -
2002 Goldfish Pictures Inc. Produced / Edited by Richard Barber, Mike Maloy, Bruce Spiegel and Mead Stone. Executive
Producers Jules Naudet, Gedeon Naudet and James
Hanlon. Directed by Jules Naudet, Gedeon
Naudet and James Hanlon. Pfeifers’ statement
appears to have been recorded between the times of 8:46am and 9:03am on Tuesday
11th September 2001.
Mr. Obenhaus
“I was at the corner of
Franklin and West Broadway, and as I was approaching the subway, a tremendous
roar went over my head and--and I looked up immediately, and it was a plane
much lower than I've ever seen a plane in lower
It was extraordinary. No--no wings flew off, nothing like that. It just went directly in, creating this sort of cavern-like hole….the profile--the body of the plane was of such scale that I immediately identified it as a commercial jet.. I didn't--I couldn't--it happened so quickly I couldn't tell whether it had windows on the side or what, but it could very well have been some sort of a--a transport plane. But it was a large, large plane, as opposed to, occasionally down here you do see smaller, prop planes or smaller aviation stuff that flies around here sometimes, doing movies and things like that.
But in all my years down
here, and I've lived down here for about 20 years within walking distance
easily of the building, I've never heard anything like this, and that's
what--that's why I--I just immediately glanced up, and I just followed the
track of this sound and this huge plane that was swooping over my
head….my impression was--was that it had a tan coloration to it. However, the
sun, it was very low in the horizon, and I think kind of orange, and it may
have been simply the colour of the sun reflecting off a silver exterior…”
From an ABC News
Special Report on Tuesday 11 September 2001.
Todd Harris
“Yes, I had a perfect
view, and the plane was coming in. I noticed it a second before it hit
the building. It looked like it was moving slowly, and it lined itself up to
hit the building directly.”
From CNN Live on
Tuesday 11 September 2001.
Mary Cozza
“…we saw a plane flying low
overhead which caught all of our attention. We looked up. It was making a
b-line for the World Trade Centre. It was very low, extremely low, not a big
plane like an airliner …uh… but not a tiny propeller plane, a small, small
jet plane.”
From NBC Television live on Tuesday 11 September 2001. Recording
appears to have been made between the times of 8:46am and 9:03am.
Part 2 – Aural Accounts
Don Dahler
“…I can only describe as,
it sounded like a missile, not an airplane….it was definitely not the
sound of a prop plane or anything like that….I grew up on military bases and I
know the sound of jets and I’ve been in war zones and heard those kinds of
different sounds….the sound itself was not of a prop plane , it was perhaps a
jet, but it could have been a missile as well….it was high pitched, but it had
a…er…a…whooshing sound, not, not like a prop plane…”
From
an ABC News Report at 8:54 am on Tuesday 11 September 2001.
Part 3 – Retrospective Accounts and Second Hand Accounts
George Sleigh
"I was on the phone;
I heard a roar, looked out the window and saw...er...this passenger jet
coming toward the building. It was only 2 or 3 plane lengths away from me
at that point and I didn't really have time to react. I just saw it then it was
into the building."
From "How The
The story behind Sleighs report is a long one. It started with an alleged report from him
posted at CNN’s web site on the 14th September 2001
Survivor saw inside
hijacked jet - September 14, 2001 Posted: 10:18 AM EDT (1418 GMT)
George Sleigh escaped
from the north tower of the World Trade Centre before it collapsed LONDON,
"When I close my
eyes and picture that airliner coming towards me and the people in the cockpit
it is like a dream," Sleigh said. After hearing the whining engine of the
jet, "I looked up out of the window and just a few feet away from the
building was this huge jet plane," he said. "The wheels were down and
I could see the people in the cockpit. I thought to myself, 'Man this guy is
low in the air,' but I still thought it would clear us. But then it smashed into
the tower a few floors above me. "I couldn't believe it,
even now it seems insane that anyone would do that, even a crazed
terrorist."
I reproduced this statement in my own article "Was Flight 11 A 767?" that was published in April 2004. In the paper
I questioned the likelihood of the statement being genuine and in September
2004 Sleigh contacted me to set the record straight.
"At no time have I
ever indicated to anyone that I saw people in the cockpit. Some of the British
tabloids attributed that quote to me and subsequently I refused to grant
interviews with those tabloids. As is pointed out in the article, if I had seen
people in the cockpit I would not be around to discuss it."
"Every time I have
discussed my account I have made it quite clear that what I witnessed was a
large passenger jet (model or airline unknown) flying above my location
with the wheels up, I particularly commented on the smooth underbelly of the
plane. I have never indicated to anyone that the undercarriage was down!"
Also,
"I was in my office
on the north side of the 91st floor. I was alerted by a loud roar to look out
of my window and saw the plane approaching about 3 or 4 plane lengths
away. I can remember it as clearly as if it were yesterday. I recognised it
only as a large passenger jet, with a light coloured, and smooth
under-body. I had no time to react as the plane almost instantaneously hit the
building above my location. We exited from our floor as quickly as possible
taking the only stairway that remained accessible to us - the other two
stairwells were blocked. We were to find out later that no one above our floor
escaped. I continue to praise God for sparing my life that day."
And later,
"The plane
definitely had engines on its wings."
"I only recall that
the undercarriage was light - I have been quoted as saying it was white, but I
only saw the plane for a few seconds before it hit the building."
"
"Dean E. Murphy, a
reporter from the NY Times "SEPTEMBER 11: AN ORAL HISTORY", page 41
"I saw the nose of the plane and then the smooth underbelly and one of the
wings. It was just above me, a little to the right, and slightly bent so that
the wing over me was higher than the other wing. I couldn't see any windows or
recognize any markings but I noticed the landing gear was up."
David M. Bresnahan
"TERROR IN
What this demonstrates is that CNN had either deliberately or
accidentally modified George Sleighs original report to add details that were
not originally there, and that Sleighs recollection of the incident changes
slightly each time he asked to recall it.
NBC News Reporters
Female:
“Now
according to the pilot that we had on a few minutes ago he said that appeared
to be a smaller jet, business type of jet.”
Male:
“Yes.”
Female:
“Um, so
perhaps it was some sort of a commuting airline or something like that.”
From a live NBC
News report on Tuesday 11 September 2001 at some time after the Pentagon strike.
Sid Bedingfield
"I thought it could
have been an accident...I thought the plane was much smaller...our shot
was from a good distance of. It was when we confirmed that it was in fact a 767
that I realised what we were in for..."
From "CNN Tribute -
Captain Dennis Tardio
“I looked up and I said
to myself. Where’s he going? Nobody flies this low over
From "9/11 - The Filmmakers Commemorative DVD Edition" -
2002 Goldfish Pictures Inc. Produced / Edited by Richard Barber, Mike Maloy, Bruce Spiegel and Mead Stone. Executive
Producers Jules Naudet, Gedeon Naudet and James
Hanlon. Directed by Jules Naudet, Gedeon
Naudet and James Hanlon.
Damien Van Cleaf
“…and it felt like a
dream as I seen the plane crumble into the building, just disintegrate…”
From "9/11 - The Filmmakers Commemorative DVD Edition" -
2002 Goldfish Pictures Inc. Produced / Edited by Richard Barber, Mike Maloy, Bruce Spiegel and Mead Stone. Executive
Producers Jules Naudet, Gedeon Naudet and James
Hanlon. Directed by Jules Naudet, Gedeon
Naudet and James Hanlon.
Charles Waters
“I worked on the 54th
Floor World Trade Centre 2. On Tuesday 9/11, I was on the plaza of the World
Trade Centre when I saw the first plane hit WTC1. It was 8:43am….I
arrived in
From “The View From
The
Mariah Ehlert
“I was looking out the
window talking to my co-worker, David, when I saw a plane, which was
flying too close. I was going to tell David to look so he could see it when it
came out from behind the WTC: but it didn’t, it crashed. I screamed something.
I tried to call Mom, then sent her an e-mail to get offline and left her a
voice message. We were trying to find something in the news for more
information, but it was too early. It was very creepy being witness to this before
it even hit the news.”
From
Karin Batten
“Once I found out what
happened, I knew I had to go get my son. Luckily, I found him, and all the kids
told me they saw the plane coming by their classroom and hitting the tower
and they saw people jumping from the building. Then we all turned around and
Tower One – where all my work, my supplies, everything, was – was coming down.
Several children whose parents worked at the World Trade Centre just screamed.”
From the “
Eberhart Testimony
“And at that time, we
issued a scramble order for the two F-15s out of Otis Air Force Base. We
continued to send those airplanes toward
From
the FDCH transcripts from Congressional Hearings on 25th October 2001.
Unknown Clergyman
“…one of our Friars was
walking down
From
“Victim 0001”. Transmitted in the
Female Voice From “Bob
and Bri” Video
“Bob said he heard it sounded like a
rocket…”
From “September
11, 2001 – What We Saw” by “Bob and Bri”.
Released
through Revver.com on September 11th 2006.
Revver.com is run
by Edelman Public Relations.
“Phone” Witness
"It looked like a
normal plane going over the city, and then, all of a sudden, a turn to the
left, and it slammed right into the WTC."
From “Three Hours that Shook
Fire Marshal Steven Mosiello
“I was told by somebody that we had an
eyewitness who happened to be an off-duty firefighter who told me that he saw
the first building get hit and it was
hit by a prop jet, which I think turned out to be the wrong information,
but everybody sees things differently. But he said he was an eyewitness. I gave
him to a fire marshal. I never got his name personally.”
http://www.flcv.com/wtcplane.html
Firefighter Roy Chelsen
“We proceeded in Tower 1. I think the
revolving doors were kind of busted up, so I think we went through a
window. At that point we were still not
sure that it was a plane that had hit the tower. There was some talk from the
civilians coming down that a plane hit. The consensus was that it was a small plane. “
http://www.flcv.com/wtcplane.html
Anthony Bartolomey
“Numerous
civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were
discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Leer jet type, a small jet plane. Some said it was a large passenger plane. One
person actually said that it was like a military
style plane that actually shot missiles into the building.”
http://www.flcv.com/wtcplane.html
Firefighter Richard Carletti
“I was coming up Allen, which turns
into First. When I was crossing
http://www.flcv.com/wtcplane.html
Part 4 – Videographic Recordings
Jules Naudet
The aircraft in the video is too small to be a Boeing 767-200 but
is similar in size to a Boeing 737-NG. The audio recording is consistent with
the noise produced by the bypass engines of a commercial passenger jet at a low
throttle setting. Just prior to impact the jet engine noise fades out to a
quiet whining noise. The Jules Naudet first hit sound track can be downloaded here
From "9/11 -
The Filmmakers Commemorative DVD Edition" - 2002 Goldfish Pictures Inc.
Produced / Edited by Richard Barber, Mike Maloy,
Bruce Spiegel and Mead Stone. Executive Producers Jules
Naudet, Gedeon Naudet and James Hanlon. Directed by Jules Naudet, Gedeon Naudet
and James Hanlon. The video of the WTC1 strike was allegedly recorded
serendipitously by Jules Naudet at 8:46am on Tuesday 11 September 2001 from
Pavel Hlava
The resolution
of the Pavel Hlava video is so low it is impossible to determine how large the
flying object is or what the flying object is.
The video was
allegedly recorded serendipitously by Pavel Hlava from the back of an SUV on
the approach to the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel at 8:46am on Tuesday 11 September
2001.
Part 5 –
Audio Recordings
Ginny Carr
Ginny Carr was at a business meeting in
The WTC1 impact recording consists of a quiet whistling noise
followed by two loud bangs nine seconds apart (the second one being a quick
double bang in itself). It bears no resemblance to the roaring sound that
should have been produced by the 2 bypass engines used on a Boeing 767-200.
To hear Ginny Carr’s recording in full go to www.sonicmemorial.com, enter the archive and search for “Ginny
Carr” or alternatively download the WTC1 impact recording only here.
Sound track
allegedly recorded serendipitously by Ginny Carr from
Analysis Of Witness Reports
In order to draw a conclusion from the witness reports we will
only consider reports made on the day of 911 itself. The reason for this is to
eliminate reports that might have been contaminated by the publicly announced
official version of events, shortcomings of the witnesses memory or any
witnesses who simply “change their mind” for whatever reason.
Therefore we will be examining the following reports because all
of them were taken on the morning of Tuesday 11th September 2001.
“Libby Clark“
Karim Arraki
Todd Harris
“Stuart”
“Dog Walking Woman”
Narrator On Mi
Kyung Heller Video
Sean Murtagh
“Spear” Witness
Mary Cozza
Mr Obenhaus
“In Distress” Witness
Don Dahler
Jane Derenowski
&
Chief Joseph Pfeifer
The reports from “Spear” Witness, “In Distress” Witness, Todd
Harris and Chief Joseph Pfeifer do nothing more than tell us that some sort of
aeroplane flew into WTC1.
Mr. Obenhaus claims to have positively identified the aircraft as
a large commercial jet. But when pressured by the news reporter he can’t recall
how many engines it had, even though he could make out airframe colouration and
distinguish it from “prop planes or smaller aviation stuff
that flies around here sometimes…”. Towards the end of the statement he hints at the possibility of
it being a transport plane because “…it happened so quickly I couldn't
tell whether it had windows on the side or what…”, thereby contradicting his earlier claim of it being a commercial
jet.
The Obenhaus transcript suggests that Obenhaus is unsure of what
he actually saw. It seems hard to believe that this man could have seen an
aircraft with basic detail like colour and size yet at the same time fail to
notice how many engines it had. The Obenhaus statement appears to have been
made towards the end of the CNN new special on 911 at a time when the reports
of hijacked commercial planes were widespread. It’s difficult to know if Obenhaus
is reproducing the official line or his own version of what he saw under the
influence of the official reports of hijacked passenger jets. For these reasons
I have chosen to largely ignore the Obenhaus report.
I find it hard to believe that Murtaghs report is genuine and / or
accurate. We should consider the way CNN added fictitious detail to George
Sleighs original statement and the comment from Murtaghs colleague, Sid
Bedingfield, who states “I thought the plane was much smaller”. Presumably Bedingfield is making a
comparative statement about the aircraft he saw in relation to the type of
aircraft Flight 11 was supposed to have been in the official version of events,
namely an American Airlines Boeing 767-200.
Consequently I’ve chosen to ignore the Murtagh report as there is
evidence to suggest that he is not telling the truth and / or he might have had
an ulterior motive for claiming to have seen a large passenger jet in his
position as the Vice President of CNN.
Although there are 2 (somewhat suspicious) witness reports of a
large commercial aircraft colliding with WTC1 the bulk of witness reports
suggest something significantly smaller than a large commercial aircraft. Karim
Arraki, “Stuart”, “Dog Walking Woman”, Don Dahler and the narrator on the Mi
Kyung Heller video provide more or less consistent details at roughly the same
points in time very close to the WTC1 attack at 8:46am. Their collective
observations are summarised below in 5 points:
1 – “Small plane”
2 – “Non-commercial”
3 – “Flight training aircraft”
4 – “Missile”
5 – “Small jet”
To some extent these 5 points are subjective and unspecific. From
the perspective of a glider pilot a Learjet could be described as a large
aeroplane but a 747 pilot could just as easily describe a Learjet as a small
plane. The term “non-commercial” is
meaningless as flight training in a 2 seater aircraft is classed as
“commercial” because a flying instructor will receive payment from a student
pilot to receive that training. So the terms “non-commercial” and “commercial”
don’t always provide us with information about the size of the aircraft. Any
aircraft can be used for training regardless of its size. For example a Boeing
737-400 trainee pilot will complete most of his / her type rating course in a
simulator followed by Base Training on an empty Boeing 737-400. So the idea
that because a plane is used for flight training it must therefore be small is
untrue. A missile can be described as an object or weapon for throwing at a
target or for discharge from a machine or a weapon directed by remote control
or automatically. In other words a missile could be something launched from the
wing of an F-16 during aerial combat or an Airbus A380 flying on autopilot.
Consequently the term “missile” is meaningless with regard to its size and
functionality.
So what is do the witnesses mean when they talk of a “missile” or a “small” aircraft or a “non-commercial”
aircraft or an aircraft that would be used for flight training?
I suspect that the term “non-commercial”
refers to an aircraft that would not be typically used for transporting people
or cargo. In other words an aircraft that would be used by flying schools to
teach student pilots basic piloting skills. But exactly how small is “small”? Most people are familiar with
“heavy” aircraft seen at airports like Boeing and Airbus models and I suspect
the term “small” is relative to the
perception of the size of these types of aircraft.
If you see an aircraft at an airport that functions as a carrier
of people or cargo then I doubt if the witnesses would perceive this type of
aircraft as “small”. On the other
hand if you went to an airfield that mainly accommodated aircraft used for
training student pilots then these types of aircraft would presumably be
perceived as “small” by the witnesses.
My interpretation of these 5 reports collectively is that the
aircraft in question appeared to the witnesses as something that would not have
been used for carrying large amounts of people (no greater than 15) and would
be predominant at airfields that support light aircraft operations and / or
recreational aviation.
As for the term “missile”,
it probably means something the size of a Tomahawk / CALCM missile or anything
that the layman might associate with a missile from films or popular media.
This term “missile” is the odd one
out as it implies small or absent wings. The other witnesses make a specific
reference to an ”aircraft” or a “plane” which suggests
prominent wings.
The Derenowski reports suggests the aircraft was larger than a “Cessna” which seems to refer to the
popular 4-seater Cessna 172 light aircraft and / or any other similar type of
aircraft (Cessna 182, Piper Warrior, etc.) used primarily for recreational and
training purposes. The term “mid-sized”
plane is open to interpretation, but would presumably eliminate the “large
jet” or “large plane” option. So this report is a little vague only
telling us that the size of the plane was somewhere between that of a typical
light aircraft and a typical passenger jet (like an Airbus A320 or a Boeing 737
for example). The “Libby Clark”
statement is like an imprecise version of Derenowskis’ and can only be used to
eliminate the “large plane” option and “light aircraft” option
with words like “I mean
it wasn't the size of a jet” (presumably within the context of the statement she is referring
to a typical large passenger jet) and “it was not a small, small plane…”.
Similarly the Cozza report eliminates the “light aircraft” option and the “large
passenger jet” option. Both the Derenowski and Cozza reports are specific
and spoken with a degree of confidence unlike the Arraki report that is
somewhat rushed and vague.
Estimation Of Aircraft Size Deduced From Analysis of Witness Reports
By analysing the witness reports previously mentioned it would
appear that the size of aircraft (but not type of aircraft) that hit Tower 1 of
the former World Trade Centre complex on the morning of 911 could have been as
small as a Beechcraft Baron (approximately 10 meters in length) to an aircraft
the size of a Bombardier Learjet (with variants up to 18 meters in length):
Collectively the reports seem to swing in favour the larger
option, say in the 15 meter to 20 meter range with two witnesses stating
succinctly that, “…it wasn’t
a Cessna or anything like that” and “…but
not a tiny propeller plane”.
The aircraft in question may not have been a conventional
aircraft, it might just as easily have been a Tomahawk / CALCM missile or a
custom built missile specifically for the WTC1 attack, but this option does not
have overall support from the witness statements.
I suspect that if the aircraft was any longer than 20 meters the
witnesses would not have perceived it as being a “small” aircraft or a “missile”
and they would have recognised it as something “commercial”, not “non-commercial”.
The Boeing 737-200 is approximately 30 meters in length and would be operated
from larger airfields for the purpose of carrying passengers. I doubt if anyone
would consider this type of aircraft to be “small”
or confuse it with a missile.
Computer Simulated Visualisation Of The “Flight 11” Aircraft
Below we have a Beechcraft Baron and a Bombardier Learjet next to
an American Airlines Boeing 767-200 for comparative reference.
Conclusion
There isn’t any evidence to support the official version of events
which tells us a large Boeing 767-200 passenger jet hit WTC1 on the morning of
911. The witness reports indicate that whatever hit WTC1 was probably similar
in size to an aircraft like the Bombardier Learjet with a conventional airframe
(i.e. a single fuselage with two wings).
Implications Of The WTC1 Witness Reports Analysis
The conclusion raises serious doubt over the statements from Sean
Murtagh, George Sleigh, and Mr.
Obenhaus. Why do their reports conflict so heavily with the majority of
“small jet” reports? Obenhaus comes across as being an outright liar
with his longwinded, embellished and contradictory banter and what looks like a
weak attempt to spin a yarn about “a transport plane” because he “couldn't tell whether it had windows on the side or what”.
The Murtagh and Sleigh recollections are more convincing. The only
problem with Sleighs story is that it’s too implausible and changes each time
he gives a report to the media. He is also employed by a branch of the U.S.
Government and that might reduce his credibility in some peoples
eyes. That leaves pensive Sean Murtagh the then Vice President of CNN, CNN being
a popular outlet for government propaganda.
Murtaghs statement is precise and clear but it does seem like a “stroke-of-luck”
that the Vice President of CNN was able to catch a first glimpse of the attack.
What a shame that his report contradicted the bulk of reports taken around the
same time and the official “767” version as well. One way or the other it’s the
“large passenger jet” reports that are the most suspicious, not only
because they are in a minority, but also by their very dubious nature. Memories may fade or be influenced but it’s
hard to imagine how a “small jet” can change to a “large passenger
jet “ in a few hours or even a few minutes. We
should consider the possibility that some of the “large passenger jet”
witnesses are deliberately lying. If this is the case then the “large
passenger jet” witnesses for the WTC2 event should be taken with a pinch of
salt, to say the least.
We can conclude with a high degree of certainty that the object
that struck WTC1 was definitely not a large commercial passenger jet.
Furthermore the analysis indicates that the object in question was a
conventional aircraft similar in size to a business class jet, like a Learjet
for example. There is no evidence of an unconventional aircraft or exotic
weaponry.
While compiling the article I noticed certain reports that indirectly revealed properties of the “Flight 11” aircraft. Consider the following:
“Yes, I had a
perfect view, and the plane was coming in. I noticed it a second before it hit
the building. It looked like it was moving slowly and it lined itself up to
hit the building directly.”
Additionally:
"It looked
like a normal plane going over the city, and then, all of a sudden, a turn
to the left, and it slammed right into the WTC."
How is a
Boeing 767-200 travelling at a claimed 400mph – 500mph supposed to suddenly
position itself for a pinpoint strike on a relatively small target in
This “low speed / small plane” issue raises doubt over the authenticity of the Jules
Naudet “Fireman’s Video” which is shows the WTC1 impact. A quick look at the
video shows an aircraft similar in size to a Boeing 737 / Airbus passenger jet
colliding with WTC1 at a speed in the region of 450 mph – 500 mph. The fact that
the majority of witnesses talk of a “small jet” apparently flying slower than it was supposed to be the
contradiction between this video and the witness reports couldn’t be more
obvious.
One could
argue that the “Fireman’s Video” is fake and indeed that is the authors
conclusion. This should come as no surprise to the reader when a significant
proportion of the WTC2 strike videos have already been exposed as fakes, so why
should the “Fireman’s Video” be any different?
October 2006 - Version 3.0