What We Saw...

Having this last weekend looked at the new video "911 What We Saw" (comes up on google video if you search this), there are several interesting points that need making.

1. Without any question there is a third plane. We already knew of course, but this video clearly documents an unidentified plane. From other videos we know that this was circling the towers during the two attacks. It surprises me that not more is being made of this fact. The implication is that this plane is watching, and co-ordinating the attacks.

2. The smoke rising lower down, already documented by 911 Eyewitness (the Richard Siegel film), is confirmed here albeit at a poor angle. If you look below the lowest visible reenforced elevator floor, a few floors below this (look at the lower and darker builder behind, not the outline of the South Tower) you can clearly see whisps of dust and smoke from the corner of the North Tower. This can be seen BEFORE the second impact. Furthermore, it is not completely at street level... so whatever it is must be coming from the tower itself rather than anything blown up from the street below where the air is clear.

3. Important parts of this video appear to be missing. Immediately before the first collapse, we appear to see an explosion at street level. Unfortunately, this has been clipped, and we go straight into the dust clouds from the collapse itself. It the footage of this explosion is still waiting unedited, somewhere, we ought to be shown it!

4. Some people have pointed out flashes at about seven minutes into the clip. They are visible, but I am uncertain what exactly they are. I should however, have thought, that if they were explosions then these would be followed by smoke and dust in their vicinity. This is not the case.

If the Movement has established that there was a third plane, is this not a prima facie case for an inquiry. I mean we have been told the lame reasons that the military were so late in getting to the scene, but now we are asked to believe that somebody can just circle the towers in a large plane - without the authorities being aware of it? I mean come on!

Not really

"1. Without any question there is a third plane. We already knew of course, but this video clearly documents an unidentified plane."

This, of course, is an opinion stated as fact. But, with all of the cameras and eyewitnesses present at the scene, as well as from every vantage point possible - including the Brooklyn Promenade - New Jersey - downtown Manhattan - etc etc etc - it is simply not reasonable to speculate that a 3rd plane was present that somehow slipped past the public's oral and photographic history of these events. It is not reasonable to assume that this plane somehow evaded detection for the last 5 years, after the thorough review by virtually millions of people who have painstakingly reviewed these materials.

I know of no credible claims of a 3rd plane - yet you state it as fact.

"From other videos we know that this was circling the towers during the two attacks."

There were various rescue helicopters and news helicopters circling the scene, as you would expect, but no evidence of a "3rd plane"

"It surprises me that not more is being made of this fact."

That is true, and indicates that the vast majority of people simply do not see this line of research as credible.

"The implication is that this plane is watching, and co-ordinating the attacks."

This of course is pure speculation. First you claim that a 3rd plane exists, which cannot be substantiated, and then you speculate (without ANY way of proving or verifying your statements) that this plane was "coordinating the attacks."

Now - I suppose there is some miniscule chance that you have stumbled upon some TRUTH that 99% of the public has not yet realized. But, I would say that the probability of this is extremely low.

So, it is my feeling that it is highly irresponsible of you to state opinions like these - as established facts - before truly making your case in a peer reviewed manner.

This of course then raises two possibilities:

1 - You are simply showing extremely poor judgement

2 - This is an intentional attempt to discredit the movement.

Since you are so open to speculation, i am sure you have no problem with this hypothesis.


That you have the gal!

In relation to your two possibilities. Let us start with the second. Why must people be so paranoid! Mind you there is also the possibility that *you* are trying to discredit the movement...

This leaves me with the first. It is not speculation that something - certainly not a helicopter - flies away from behind the tower in an early part of this video. I agree that I do not know what this is.

Perhaps, then, it was a U.F.O? This film concurs nicely with other clips, which you can find on 911 Scholars for Truth, where the existance of a third plane is mentioned.

An unidentified flying object of some description there is, Sir!


i really have nothing to add. those are my opinions.

lets see how others weigh in.

Flying Elephant

There was in fact a peer-reviewed paper, citing multiple sources of video, still photo, and witness evidence, posted at the Journal of 9/11 Studies site this summer arguing for the presence of a third plane. I just re-read it -- it's not long.

Here's that paper on the 3rd

Here's that paper on the 3rd plane:


Can you

provide us with a peer review that is not a product of the Scholars' own Journal?

I have not yet seen an analysis that takes into consideration the zoom-lense distortion - depth of perception compression - commonly associated with zoom lenses.

I live in NYC. The skies are filled with airliners on any given day. Just after the first plane hit there would have been literally hundreds of airliners in the air coming into NY and NJ. On a normal day they can land about one airliner every 2 to 3 minutes for a number of reasons. At 8:58 the sky was still filled with these planes.

LaGuardia, JFK and Newark all have flight paths very close to Manhattan.

Seeing planes 'near' the towers is a relative term dependant upon the type of lense used to capture the event.

How near is near?

So, you see photos of other planes in the area? so? how do you LEAP towards the conclusion that this plane was involved in the attacks?

Did you read the Journal article?

You may have a valid critique, but you asked for a peer-reviewed paper and we gave you one. (As far as I know, the Journal of 9/11 Studies is the only entity peer-reviewing 9/11 material, with the exception of the Zarembka book, perhaps.)

Yes I read the article

And I find it a little strange that, in the most heavily trafficed airspace in the world - at the center of 3 major airports - with literally hundreds of planes arriving and taking off every 2 to 3 minutes - that anyone would be surprised that a camera with a zoom lense would catch a plane in the background at 8:58.

Do you think all the planes in the skies over manhattan magically disappeared immediately after the tower was hit?

As for the Scholars..... well..... i will reserve judgement on them, but it is no mystery that this group has been the center of quite a bit of controversy lately. I will not add to this controversy by giving my opinion on their work.

The subject at hand is the 3rd plane - and i just do not agree that it is a significant line of research.

And planes typically circled the Towers?

Your argument is that the plane was in the background and picked up by a zoom lens. The author's article argues that it "orbited" the area. I think that is the point you would need to address.

Impugning the integrity of the Journal of 9/11 Studies based on behavior in the larger Scholars group is basically an ad hominem argument.

I would argue that it is an interesting line of research when coupled with NEADS' own assertion that there was a third hijacked plane in the area.


and i disagree with the paper

i do not see enough evidence that a plane was "orbiting" the towers.

and this includes my own personal eyewitness account.

but - for me - the biggest problem is that if a plane was orbiting the towers there would be literally HUNDREDS of photos of the plane.. LOL there were LIVE video feeds from every major network and amateur photographers ALL watching the events unfold.

the idea that a plane was orbiting the towers undocumented is simply ludicrous.

nothing personal. that's just my opinion.

Are you trying to make it personal?

Have I given you any indication that I take your rejection of this paper personally? I think you could probably construct a much better critique than you have so far, but it's nothing personal.

Third plane?

Here's another plane that was in the vicinity:

The editing of this video is extremely suspicious

175 (or whatever plane it was) and the collapses cut out, that in itself stinks to high heaven. Who did the editing, and why don't Bob & Bri release the unaltered footage? Of course the mystery might serve both to cover something up as well as to fuel (possibly pointless) speculation, but as it is, it's pretty unacceptable.

About the third plane, I don't have the slightest clue as to what it should have served for, so unless anyone comes up with a sound rationale, I don't think it's relevant.

I agree.

I wrote a blog about this video when it first came out. The first time I watched it and saw the edits I was dumbfounded.

Regarding discarding the alleged "third plane" as evidence: there are many things about 9/11 that independent researchers will not ever be able to satisfactorily explain. Some puzzle pieces just need to be documented and set aside for a future time when they may prove useful.

Not Relevant?


Well. 1. First let us conceed that there WAS a third plane, as someone in the comments above has thankfully documented. Further, that this third plane circled the WTC area during the attacks (as in scholars for 911 Truth and the peer reviewed paper).

This means that either the terrorists themselves had a third plane, have somehow successfully landed their additional plane, without anyone noticing. Has very serious implications. These people are clearly still at large! Not to mention the idea that a large plane could "just" get parked somewhere without anyone knowing about it.

OR it means that the third plane was in fact well known about by the authorities. It must have a flight plan. It must have come from somewhere, must have had a crew, and it must have a documented landing at some place.

Oh, and by the way NO plane should have been flying so close to the towers....

Not relevant? I disagree.

It's a major anomoly deserving of examination

just for the reasons you cite.

I hope you'll read the Journal article. Bear in mind that its author was anonymously threatened over it, so persuasively that he left the Scholars group.

a major anomoly?

that a camera picked up a picture of a plane in the background - in the most heavily trafficed airspace in the country?

How is that an anomoly?

at 8:58 there would have been literally hundreds of planes approaching JFK.

Any zoom lense could pick up a plane in the background.

Why does this seem so mysterious to people? LOL

Would you like to factor in the eyewitness testimony

regarding the behavior of the plane?

I ask again, did you read the paper?

i'll answer again

i read it and found it unconvincing

now - i know this is yet again going to open up a can of worms and a series of personal attacks - but - i was a witness to the events of that day, as were thousands of others in Manhattan. I had a clear unobstructed view of the towers as they got hit by the 2nd plane. We all observed helicopters circling - and it was quite apparent when the 2nd plane was making its approach. i personally cannot collaborate seeing a 3rd plane circling the towers.

so - i guess it becomes the age old question of whether people who do not agree with every 'paper' the scholars write are to be ostracized - because it would appear that the scholars' leader himself is now attacking Stephen Jones and supporting Star Wars beams.

This makes it PROBLEMATIC for me to discern just how credible work coming out of that group is.

I certainly respect David Ray Griifin. I do not Fetzer.

This paper - which i read - does not convince me. Sorry.

But - lets keep it civil and not engage in the usual hystrionics and cycle of accusations. i just do not believe the 3rd plane research has been vetted.

It has been vetted,

and you do not agree with the vetting. Saying merely that you "do not find something convincing" and not offering a reason is not a very compelling argument.

You didn't see a third plane. Okay, that's reasonable. Other people did, evidently.

Your allusion to the histrionics and accusations is pretty weird, given that you started the thread in just such a fashion. :)

I offered multiple reasons

as usual you simply will NOT accept that anyone disagrees with you.

1 - i was an eyewitness

2 - major airports in the area with hundreds of planes in the sky
3 - zoom lenses that compress depth of field

4 - the lack of evidence on literally HUNDREDS of photos and video feeds that were all capturing the events of that day that do NOT show a plane "orbiting" the towers.

So that's my opinion and, seeing the telltale signs of this debate digressing i will let this be my final opinion on the matter.

Okay then.

"as usual you simply will NOT accept that anyone disagrees with you"

but you don't want to make this personal.

Can you show me where in this thread I have stated that I believe or disbelieve the assertion that there was a third plane in the vicinity?


i have explained my position half a dozen times already - yet you say:

"Saying merely that you "do not find something convincing" and not offering a reason is not a very compelling argument."

This indicates to me that you are not being reasonable. It indicates to me that you are either attempting to intentionally distort my position - attempting to bait me - or you are just not listening to facts and opinions that differ from your own.

I am unsure why you are even persisting in this line of questioning. I've given my reasons already. What exactly are you trying to accomplish?

Ya know - for a fan of Peter Gabriel i really had hoped you and i could have had a better relationship.

anyway - i'm going to lunch. carry on without me.

Good points

I retract "not relevant". It might be relevant in the greater context, but it doesn't warrant all that much attention either, simply because we have no way to identify this plane as I see it. The same authoritities that would be able to instead kept it under wraps until now. So, unless there is a promising lead, it's a cul de sac, isn't it?

Re: editing

There's are part of the video, I think the last one, where you can hear a woman,must be "Bri" (the video is also called "Bob and Bri") say, something like she would go to the hospital and see what she could help out with.
So I just think,if we assume they are who they say,that they thought the video would be helpful.They probably handed it over to the FBI.

They have a website for the video,where they 2 months ago claimed they would released an unedited version of the tape. You see, they claim the original version isn't edited and that the holder of the camera was caught by surprise and therefore didn't catch the 2nd plane.
It's been a month since I last looked at the movie, so I apologize for not being more specific.

What is more interesting is

What is more interesting is to look at the collapse of the second tower in relation to building 7. It clearly shows that no debris from the upper levels of the collapsing tower strike building 7. Debris/dust only appears to even reach building 7 (as seen by the sky between the buildings being obscured) until after the collapsing tower is half gone (approx 50 stories) - about the height of building 7. So, the question remains, how much debris could reach building 7 from a tower that is only as high as it is from a distance of several hundred feet? A gravity collapse would make this impossible.

Any comments?

WTC1 stood closer to 7

so that's a somewhat moot point. However, the fact that adjacent buildings which were exposed to about the same amount of debris just took it remains. Anyway, there's really no need to argue about WTC7, it's a clear case of controlled demolition and anyone denying that is either dishonest, clueless, or not thinking reasonably.

third plane clearing shown here....

Zoom Lense

The skies of NYC are filled with airliners on any given day. Just after the first plane hit there would have been literally hundreds of airliners in the air coming into NY and NJ. On a normal day they can land about one airliner every 2 to 3 minutes for a number of reasons. At 8:58 the sky was still filled with these planes.

LaGuardia, JFK and Newark all have flight paths very close to Manhattan.

Any zoom lense could pick up planes in the background.

Zoom lenses compress depth of field.

Zoom lenses compress depth

Zoom lenses compress depth of field.

Exactly. That is my opinion on this as well. Obviously there was a plane, but I have not seen anything that proves the plane was actually within the vicinity of the towers themselves.

The Diane Sawyer testimony

suggests that it was, in fact, in the immediate vicinity and not in the background. This is a case where video, still photograph, and eyewitness testimony are used together to make an assertion (that there was a third plane in the immediate vicinity.)

even worse

they claim that the plane was "orbiting" the towers.

now there WERE helicopters orbiting. perhaps this confused people who saw them from a distance.

If your from New York, than

If your from New York, than you are aware that commercial traffic is actually routed around Manhattan and not over it.

Not true

i can look up on any given day and see a plane over manhattan. i have in fact flown OVER manhattan myself - from the southern tip straight up to the Bronx, where the plane made a right turn and landed at La Guardia.

An Air Defense Identification Zone similar to that in place in Washington was briefly enforced over the New York area after 9/11, but was rescinded. According to federal aviation officials, such restrictions are established in consultation with the Transportation Security Administration and other agencies, as part of a “risk-based approach.”

Airspace over Manhattan is restricted to commercial planes.

but - it doesn't matter. The picture of the "meystery plane" everyone keeps referencing is facing south. The WTC complex is at the southern tip of Manhattan. The plane BEHIND the WTC would therefore be over the water and could be approaching/departing JFK or Newark airports.

Thank you and all apologies

Thank you and all apologies sir. Obviosly I was mistaken.


why can't the no-planers be more like you?

www.terrorize.dk is an

www.terrorize.dk is an interesting site,but it's all in Danish. If anyone desperately needs some translations of it, I happen to speak Danish and would be happy to translate.
It has some great videos. For example ,you see the as it happens reaction of the journalist and Danish military command and political analyst all of which totally rule out that this is a Bin Ladin operation. The military leaders say a state has aided and sponsored this. Then when American media said Bin Ladin,they all said the same ,but expressed great surprise.
Another interesting thing from this site is , that two Danish politicians were inside the Pentagon when it was hit,but they both claim the hit time to be 9:30. The two were Per Stig Moller, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Holger K. Nielsen, leader of the Peoples Socialistic Party.

Anyone see the window

Anyone see the window washers on building 7?

can anyone snag screenshots

can anyone snag screenshots of this video or have any already up?