• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Smaller airplanes, and who saw them[W:109, 340]

Re: Smaller airplanes, and who saw them

I'm sorry, but is the linked article supposed to support the claim you have been making for the last few days that a small aircraft, not a Boeing 767 (or specifically Flight 11) crashed into the North Tower?
 
Re: Smaller airplanes, and who saw them

People who don't do it regularly are notoriously bad at judging sizes and distances of aircraft. This was driven home to me when I read an article in some newspaper about a "near miss" between two commercial aircraft. There was a picture accompanying the story of a photo shot from a passenger window of one aircraft of the other as it passed. The article stated that passengers estimated the two aircraft passed within a few hundred feet of each other. The other aircraft was at least a half mile away, maybe a little more. I based that estimate on over 1000 hours of flying as pilot in command and judging distances between myself and other aircraft. To an casual observer a low jet with little relative motion several miles away could appear much smaller than it really is.

Additionally, and again based on my copious experience driving small aircraft if one were to hit a building it would simply crumple and slide down the face of the building. Light aircraft don't weigh more than 12,500 pounds and most are much less than that. They have neither the mass nor the velocity to do significant damage. For most light aircraft the damage would be analogous to what a fast moving automobile would do.
 
Last edited:
Re: Smaller airplanes, and who saw them

NWO_Spook said:
Oh, Jesus, is it a full moon?
Click to expand...
HD debunks himself
And I got to like you 2x ;)
This thread is a triple winner!
 
Re: Smaller airplanes, and who saw them

So HD, can I please get that clarification? Is the article linked to in the OP supposed to support the claim you have been making this week that a small commuter aircraft, not a Boeing 767 and certainly not Flight 11 actually crashed into the North Tower?
 
Re: Smaller airplanes, and who saw them

Henry David said:
Thanks to Craig McKee of Truth and Shadows

Yes, what happened that day very much involved sleight-of-hand. :cool:

http://tinyurl.com/q6vv52h
Click to expand...
As others have asked you, what point are you suggesting this article makes? According to the title of this thread it's about people seeing small planes. Are you suggesting that it was a small plane that struck the towers?
 
Re: Smaller airplanes, and who saw them

gamolon said:
As others have asked you, what point are you suggesting this article makes? According to the title of this thread it's about people seeing small planes. Are you suggesting that it was a small plane that struck the towers?
Click to expand...

I am suggesting that a small plane struck only the North Tower, the first one struck. Not likely that it was a Boeing, given the testimony of nearly everybody who accidentally saw it happen. And a shot taken by a parking lot camera that I saw several times about 10 years ago that recorded the strike. To me, it looked like a smaller airplane, not a Boeing 767, upon which I have ridden.

That video is no longer available and I saw it at PFT. It was only 5 seconds long, but it did record the impact. Just like witnesses reported.
 
Re: Smaller airplanes, and who saw them

Henry David said:
I am suggesting that a small plane struck only the North Tower, the first one struck. Not likely that it was a Boeing, given the testimony of nearly everybody who accidentally saw it happen. And a shot taken by a parking lot camera that I saw several times about 10 years ago that recorded the strike. To me, it looked like a smaller airplane, not a Boeing 767, upon which I have ridden.

That video is no longer available and I saw it at PFT. It was only 5 seconds long, but it did record the impact. Just like witnesses reported.
Click to expand...

PFt.... That is your problem
 
Re: Smaller airplanes, and who saw them

Actually it's your problem Maus, and that's why you're calling it a lie, which it is not. You are so predictable. :lol:
 
Re: Smaller airplanes, and who saw them

Henry David said:
I am suggesting that a small plane struck only the North Tower, the first one struck. Not likely that it was a Boeing, given the testimony of nearly everybody who accidentally saw it happen. And a shot taken by a parking lot camera that I saw several times about 10 years ago that recorded the strike. To me, it looked like a smaller airplane, not a Boeing 767, upon which I have ridden.

That video is no longer available and I saw it at PFT. It was only 5 seconds long, but it did record the impact. Just like witnesses reported.
Click to expand...

This isn't what was asked. Is the link in the OP intended to support your claim of a small aircraft hitting the North Tower?
 
Re: Smaller airplanes, and who saw them

Yes Mark, it was meant to and it does make my point--it wasn't a Boeing that struck the North Tower. Habla ingles?
 
Re: Smaller airplanes, and who saw them

Henry David said:
Yes Mark, it was meant to and it does make my point--it wasn't a Boeing that struck the North Tower. Habla ingles?
Click to expand...

Did you actually read the article?
 
Re: Smaller airplanes, and who saw them

Henry David said:
Yes Mark, it was meant to and it does make my point--it wasn't a Boeing that struck the North Tower. Habla ingles?
Click to expand...

We habla your Ingles all too well.
 
Re: Smaller airplanes, and who saw them

Henry David said:
Thanks to Craig McKee of Truth and Shadows

Yes, what happened that day very much involved sleight-of-hand. :cool:

http://tinyurl.com/q6vv52h
Click to expand...

And? It's just more prosaic junk from the idiot quarter of the internet. Basically, it's an argument from incredulity and nothing more, while simultaneously proving absolutely nothing.
 
Re: Smaller airplanes, and who saw them

Henry David said:
Thanks to Craig McKee of Truth and Shadows

Yes, what happened that day very much involved sleight-of-hand. :cool:

http://tinyurl.com/q6vv52h
Click to expand...
So you title this thread Re: Smaller airplanes, and who saw them and in your opening post, give this link http://tinyurl.com/q6vv52h[/url].

Then later in the thread, you say this:
Henry David said:
I am suggesting that a small plane struck only the North Tower, the first one struck. Not likely that it was a Boeing, given the testimony of nearly everybody who accidentally saw it happen.
Click to expand...

Can you please quote the sentence in the article you linked to above that has anything to do with someone witnessing a small plane striking the north tower?
 
Re: Smaller airplanes, and who saw them

Truther joined-up thinking!
 
Re: Smaller airplanes, and who saw them

gamolon said:
So you title this thread Re: Smaller airplanes, and who saw them and in your opening post, give this link http://tinyurl.com/q6vv52h[/url].

Then later in the thread, you say this:


Can you please quote the sentence in the article you linked to above that has anything to do with someone witnessing a small plane striking the north tower?
Click to expand...

Fifth paragraph of the article, which quotes Theresa Renaud. Her initial statements to Gumbel did not even mention an airplane, only the explosions. It was so small that she did not even see it, or if she did see it, failed to mention it. Failed to mention that it was an airliner.

In subsequent statements to others she did incorporate the airplane into her story.
 
Re: Smaller airplanes, and who saw them

Henry David said:
Fifth paragraph of the article, which quotes Theresa Renaud. Her initial statements to Gumbel did not even mention an airplane, only the explosions.
Click to expand...

Great. Here is that 5th paragraph:
Renaud described the first impact this way: “I would say that approximately 10 minutes ago there was a major explosion from, probably it looks like from the 80th floor, it looks like it’s affected probably four to eight floors, major flames are coming out of the, let’s see, the north side and also the east side of the building, yes.”
Click to expand...

Question for you. Reading that paragraph above, how did you come up the following two statements?
Henry David said:
It was so small that she did not even see it,
Click to expand...
and
Henry David said:
or if she did see it, failed to mention it. Failed to mention that it was an airliner.
Click to expand...

Also, can you please provide the links to the "statements to others" you proffered as evidence below?
Henry David said:
In subsequent statements to others she did incorporate the airplane into her story.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Smaller airplanes, and who saw them

gamolon said:
Also, can you please provide the links to the "statements to others" you proffered as evidence below?
Click to expand...

I would bet my house and land on that those statements do not exist.
 
Re: Smaller airplanes, and who saw them

gamolon said:
Great. Here is that 5th paragraph:


Question for you. Reading that paragraph above, how did you come up the following two statements?
and

As I've already posted, because she did not describe an airplane, but only a 10 minute old explosion at specific points on the building, it is likely that she did not even see the airplane. Why would one describe an explosion at specific points on the building without describing what caused it, supposedly a 767 airliner? Why?

Also, can you please provide the links to the "statements to others" you proffered as evidence below?
Click to expand...

The statements of others were those statements made to the police by way of telephone. From memory, as I read about this 10 years ago or so, there were about a dozen callers to the police to report that the North Tower had been struck by an airplane. Those calls were also referenced on several TV news accounts in that time period between the first strike and the second strike.

Of about a dozen such calls, most were very specific that it was NOT an airliner, but a smaller, commuter or corporate type aircraft.

Re-reading your posts, I may have understood you slightly.

Renaud's first televised statements were to Gumbel, and at some later point she made statements to other news sources. Read the article.

Sorry again. Theresa Renaud's statements did not include any reference to an airliner. She described only explosions at specific locations on the tower. Why would a person who had just witnessed an airliner strike a building NOT include reference to that airliner?

Because the airplane was so small she did not see it, that's why. It was not a Boeing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom