No-Plane - Eyewitness Account Analysis
An Independent Investigation
On 9/11 at 10:05 a.m. Fox News reporter Rick Leventhal briefly interviewed a passer-by eyewitness who gave a brief account of what he observed.
The eyewitness said, "it was not a second plane it was a bomb, no second plane."
Many 9/11 researchers claim this is evidence of "no-plane at all" hitting the South Tower. While I believe the eyewitness's account, I do however question whether or not this account can be accepted as absolute proof and evidence for the "no-plane at all" theory.
While I do not believe the planes we were told hit the North Tower, South Tower, Pentagon or Shanksville, I do believe some type of object was seen by the majority of eyewitnesses, which they believed to be a plane, which was captured on people’s videos and photographs.
My reason for questioning the "No-Plane at All" Theory
Both Simon Shack and Ace Baker have promoted the “no-plane at all” theory with them both producing very dubious research findings, thus to promote the use of CGI and compositing "fake" planes into the television news coverage, it appears from my extensive research that this theory was deliberately propagated to cast doubt over the authenticity of the 9/11 video evidence, and has been used by Shack to discredit the work of Dr. Judy Wood and also to act as cover-story to conceal the use of advanced 3D volumetric "image projection" technology, which created the plane illusion in the sky, which many people witnessed, photographed and video taped.
Strange anomalies were captured in the videos and photographs of the plane, such as; disappearing wings, impossible speed of the plane, and also a lack of Newtonian crash physics of the plane impacting the South Tower, which is why "video fakery" was promoted as the answer and to explain the strange anomalies within the videos and photographs. However, video fakery could not explain all the differing eyewitness accounts of the plane, where as 3D volumetric image projection does.
Some logical questions:
Logical questions should be asked to establish the veracity of this eyewitnesses account. Unfortunately this is never considered by the 9/11 researchers' who use this eyewitness's account as evidence of "no planes at all".
Where was the eyewitness located when he didn't see the plane hit the South Tower, which led him to believe it was a "bomb" he witnessed?
Where was the eyewitness located when the explosion happened?
Was he located on the "North side" of the face of the South Tower?
What view of the sky or building did the eyewitness have which led him to determine "no-plane" hit the South Tower and believe it was a bomb?
These are all legitimate questions to be considered before concluding that "no-plane at all" hit the South Tower. The simple answer is we don't know where the eyewitness was located at the time of the alleged second plane impacting the South Tower building.
Conclusion
We know Rick Leventhal was located further-up by Church and Murray St, which is on the North side of the South Tower not far from the alleged plane engine which exited the South Tower and landed on Murray St. If this was the case that this Fox News eyewitness was located on the North side of the South Tower, then one might expect he didn't see the plane's approach and impact into the South Tower building, which might be why he genuinely thought it was a "bomb" going-off in the South Tower.
There were many eyewitness accounts of "no-plane" regarding the South Tower event which were broadcast live on 9/11, however frustratingly we don't have their initial locations to determine exactly where their locations were and also their vantage points to the event, as with the case of the Fox News eyewitness.
I don’t feel this is the best evidence to prove the “no-plane at all” theory. A large number of eyewitnesses did see something in the air, which they took to be a plane, both large and small, and even a “rocket” according to Les Sweeting. However based on my extensive research and analysis, it was not a real physical aircraft that was observed, that much I know for sure.
An article of interest regarding eyewitness accounts is Andrew Johnson's Going in Search of Planes in NYC
Thank you for reading!
it is sufficient to know that an illusion has been done, the facts speak for themselves, no airliner ever flown could have done as was allegedly done by "FLT11" or "FLT175" . For the benefit of maximum dispersal of the information, I believe that the simplest explanation is the best ( KISS )
.
to add on to my post, I have great respect for people who have demonstrated that they can do some very deep research.
While you are certainly correct, imho, about holographic imaging used to make it appear airliners struck the buildings, I would maintain that the witness could very well have seen what he/she thought was an bomb exploding because the initial blast had to occur to give the airplane-shaped hole in the building to reinforce the "plane narrative"; however, the subsequent destruction of the towers were indicative of & had all the hallmarks of DEW being used, not planted explosives.