19-02-2010, 05:40 AM
Go here-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gItV-ENkxPY
and listen at about 1 minute in and you will hear the "eye witness" say the "engines" of the airplane weren't smoking or anything.
At about 4 minutes in to the video the "reporter" quotes a "pilot of the exact same plane" saying that the aircraft was a "Cherokee 140". Well, there is no way to distinguish between a PA-28 and a Cherokee 140 unless you know the horsepower of the engine. The pilot must have miraculously known that the engine was 140 HP to identify it as a Cherokee 140.
At 7:20 comes the inevitable questions about the safety of the building and whether it might come falling down.
At the end of the video the plane yet again morphs into a Cirrus SR-22.
Fog of war? Reminds me of the conflicting-contradictory reports in the few hours after the OK City bombing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gItV-ENkxPY
and listen at about 1 minute in and you will hear the "eye witness" say the "engines" of the airplane weren't smoking or anything.
At about 4 minutes in to the video the "reporter" quotes a "pilot of the exact same plane" saying that the aircraft was a "Cherokee 140". Well, there is no way to distinguish between a PA-28 and a Cherokee 140 unless you know the horsepower of the engine. The pilot must have miraculously known that the engine was 140 HP to identify it as a Cherokee 140.
At 7:20 comes the inevitable questions about the safety of the building and whether it might come falling down.
At the end of the video the plane yet again morphs into a Cirrus SR-22.
Fog of war? Reminds me of the conflicting-contradictory reports in the few hours after the OK City bombing.
"If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time and the taxpayers' money."
-Michael Neuman, U.S. Government bureaucrat, on why NIST didn't address explosives in its report on the WTC collapses
-Michael Neuman, U.S. Government bureaucrat, on why NIST didn't address explosives in its report on the WTC collapses