Spark Of Life Media

September 29, 2008

The Study Of 9/11 Eyewitnesses

Tracy Postert a fellow truther in the 9/11 movement explained a story where she was talking to a man who said he was in high school in Brooklyn when he looked out of the window to see WTC 1 smoke. He said he pointed it out to his class and everyone went to the window when he saw what he described as “the plane.” He said it was very small, dark and moving incredibly fast, but insisted that it was an jet plane. I asked him if it could have been a missile, that some missiles have little wings, and he denied it. I mentioned the possibility of holograms, and he was getting a little nervous and repeating himself a bit that he really saw the plane she explained. She also described a day at the Wall Street rally, where she had her big “BEAM WEAPONS destroyed the WTC” sign when a business type came up to her, asking questions and mentioning that he saw the plane. She replied to him with a question, “Do you see the word ‘plane’ on my sign? I’m not talking about the planes.” But he went on. He insisted that there were hundreds of thousands of plane eyewitnesses, including himself. Then he told the story of a young trader who came rushing in to the office saying he saw plane parts. That was his story. He said he, himself, had seen the plane, but the little vignette he related to her was about someone else seeing plane parts.

If you are a personal eyewitness to something like this, you have a personal, imprinted memory that you carry around with you. If the guy had really seen a plane impact the building that day, he would have told Tracy THAT story instead of some story about what a young trader said.

She still to this day hasn’t come across one “eyewitness” who has a story that doesn’t fall apart at the seams upon the slightest questioning.

Everyday people from all walks of life in all cities across the world talked about people they knew seeing planes. This is something that people do all the time, it is a small talk “I was there” or “The fish was this big” type story that is passed on and on and on like a silly game of telephone.

Dr James Ost, of the University of Portsmouth, said people create false memories which can pose problems for police investigating major crimes, social workers investigating families where abuse is suspected, adults who believe they have “recovered” memories from childhood trauma and for the courts where witness testimony is relied upon. He told the BA Festival of Science in Liverpool many people can be persuaded they have seen things which never happened. “Taken as a whole, this is further evidence that our memories are not perfect. They are not like a videotape you can rewind and replay for perfect recall. “Because of this, memory alone is not reliable enough to form the basis of legal decisions.”

So we are supposed to believe that everyday average joes from all over the world have stories of seeing planes that day ?But an ABC reporter standing at the base of the tower didn’t see anything ?

Notice how the plane had to have made a ‘huge turn’ to hit the tower, when in other videos including the Hezarkhani and TinaCart1 video there is no turn at all… Did two planes hit WTC 2 ? Obviously this is a complete contradiction.

Some people bring up the (obviously uneducated argument) that ‘thousands of people ‘saw planes hit the wtc’ and some have even speculated that thousands of people have home video of the planes hitting. Well the truth is that there are 18 videos and everyone of them are either anonymous posts or people who are connected to the main stream media… Why did no normal everyday people get video or pictures of the attacks ?

ELECTRONIC WARFARE : “The capability for DECEIVING, disrupting, and destroying the SURVEILLANCE and COMMAND AND CONTROL.

ELECTROMAGNETIC WEAPON –Any device which can produce an electromagnetic field of such intensity that targeted items of electronic equipment experience either a SOFT KILL or a HARD KILL.

In other words, it is standard practice in modern warfare to use electromagnetic jamming to disrupt the enemy’s electronic circuitry . Such a temporary disruption may have been applied for a few seconds only (in order to obscure missile approach) or even during … 102 minutes to obscure also the tower collapses. Only specially anti-jamming protected cameras would function during the EW activation. Please remember that no cell-phones worked properly that day – nor did the firefighters’ walkie-talkies..


According to my statistics, the majority of eyewitnesses reported a SMALL flying object (Cessna,commuter plane, business jet, small propeller plane(!), and last but not least ‘a missile’). We are talking about lots of people and testimonies (see Andrew Johnson’s study of 12000 pages of testimonies). So, if you are saying only explosions took place, you must dismiss ALL these people as plants/liars/or plain mistaken. Granted, we all know witness reports should be taken with a grain of salt – but this seems to be stretching it.

The early TV newscasts – in fact – ran with the ‘commuter-plane’ or ‘small plane’ story. Why would that be? As I see it, it was an obvious and clever strategy : as the only problem they had was the size-discrepancy between a 767 and a missile, this would help putting to rest anyone who would swear to high heaven to have witnessed a small object crashing into the tower. Gradually, as TV ran their ‘767’ cartoon-clips over and over again, they would concede that their recollection had been a misjudgment – amounting to a total of 3-4 seconds of their brain’s life…

* Only 19 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing plane 2 before impact and, as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 20%.

* Only 20 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 21%.

* Only 8 of the witnesses near the WTC reported actually seeing and hearing plane 2 before impact and as a percentage of total number near the WTC, this was 8.3%.

* Of those witnesses inside one of the WTC buildings at the time of the 2nd impact, only 2 reported hearing the plane (none saw it). As a percentage of the total of those inside WTC, this was 9.5%.

* There were 117 witnesses inside or near the WTC and 291 witnesses in the total sample I used. The percentages given below, then, are therefore based on the number 291 – 117 giving a total of 174.

* There were 33 witnesses who were further than ½ mile from the WTC Complex and reported seeing plane 2 before impact. As a percentage of the total of those who were further than ½ mile from WTC Complex, this was 19%.

* There were 2 witnesses who were further than ½ mile from the WTC Complex and reported hearing plane 2 before impact. As a percentage of the total of those who were further than ½ mile from WTC Complex, this was 1.1%.

There are other instances of confusion. The account of Peter Fallucca (File No: 9110388) mentions a “fireball or something” and a missile attack as witnessed by a police officer:

It was a big fireball or something from the plane I guess, came from across the street in front of our rig, and as we get out of the rig, there’s a cop, city police officer, in the street. He’s telling us, “I’m getting out of here. I just saw a rocket.” He said he saw it come off the Woolworth Building and hit the tower.


  1. There’s no way that a missile hit the 2nd tower. I think a missile was possibly used on the first tower, but not the 2nd, because no one was watching. Too many people were watching the 2nd tower, and in 2001 there was no known technology that could hide a missile in real time on live television. The explosion-only theory makes more sense than any other. A missile was way too risky. You can’t take a picture of nothing, so they used nothing airborne, and relied on the fake planes on TV to tell the story.

    Think about it: Even if you’re using jamming technology on digital devices, that doesn’t guarantee that some tourist with a disposable camera isn’t going to snap a shot of a missile headed for the tower. Again, if they use nothing airborne, that guarantees that the fake videos will be more believable.

    Comment by L.L. — October 12, 2008 @ 6:19 am

  2. This view is particularly interesting in that it shows the nose end of the plane emerging on the other side of the tower–a phenomenon we observe in the distant view from the east where the nose of the plane is seen emerging. What I see is that plane exploding in a bright white blast, just as the front 25 feet of the nose emerge. This implies to me a specialized plane constructed for penetration combined with explosives on board that exploded just a bit too late to destroy the penetrating plane before the nose of the plane emerges. To optimize damage to the tower, this explosion of the nose of the plane would have been better timed to occur while the plane was inside the building.

    The emergence of the nose of the plane is cited as evidence of clumsy video fakery. I think a better hypothesis is the mis-timed explosion of a specially constructed and bomb-laden plane. This video claims that the nose emerging indicates sloppy video editing…video fakery.

    Can it be fakery when BOTH views show the nose of the plane emerging and then disintegrating by explosions.

    Dave VonKleist’s “In Plane Site” proposes that special planes with missiles, not passenger planes may explain the penetration and explosions. There are so many videos of the second plane hitting that video fakery seems improbable to have been performed on all the following videos:

    Comment by whole2th — June 26, 2010 @ 1:43 am

  3. I could not believe it, so I completed my own research. This is what I found:

    Comment by Ethel Ashe-Frear — July 6, 2012 @ 1:01 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: