No offense, his story of the first plane, "The wing came through the other side and bodies were falling to the ground. Liberty street was on fire"
Does not hold.
There was no hole on the South side of the North Tower after the "hit" I have pictures of the ground there and there are no plane parts - let alone a wing. There are no bodies in the photos.
Liberty St. in front of the fire house is to the East of the South Tower. It is not adjacent to the South side of the North Tower.
How can an AL airplane wing penetrate through the building and come out the other side intact? The tower was caged in steel.
John's narrative also breaks apart when he describes the collapse of the North Tower. How did he know it was going to fall? Why didn't the fireman *all* turn back if they knew that? Why did he leave the building? Why is there so much time in his story between the initiation of the disintegration of the building and his getting out? The building turned to dust in 10 seconds.
There is so much more about his story which is confusing and needs clarification.
How did John know it was an airplane that hit when he was in the North Tower stairwell? How was anyone able to tell him, "a plane is coming" before "it " hit.
The "plane" was allegedly traveling at over 500 miles per hour and would not be recognizable as approaching even 4 or 5 seconds before it's "impact." Neither, at that speed, could anyone predict ahead of time, to where "it" was headed.
John, IMO, could be an elaborators and exaggerator (bullshit ) rather than an outright liar. But his story, as it stands, does not hold together. This is why in courts of law testimony is questioned. For clarification and to determine its proper weight and plausibility.
Neither did Luke or Avery seek to clear iup anything John said. Since neither will ever look at the discussions around the "plane" evidence they apparently have no idea even what questions to ask to bring clarity to the issue.
They seem to take exactly what John says at face value because of the emotional issue - John is a "first responder' and firefighter. Just as Les took a 'first responder's word for it last year when the man claimed to see a stewardess strapped into a chair on the roof of a building below - from the window of one of the Towers before it collapsed -with her throat cut. Everyone bought that. She flew out of the building from the crashing "plane" landed upright on the roof of a building nearby? Still strapped in her seat? I don't believe it. People say that is rude to the "first responder" but I simply don't believe it.
Everyone apparently believes Praimnath's story too, even when it is full of impossible absurdities - the "plane" hit his office at 500+ miles an hour and (allegedly) no part of it remained outside nor in the opening into which it (allegedly) disappeared - (which is BTW, too small for a 767 to disappear into) the wing was in the room with Praimnath, and he escaped being hit by the plane by hiding under a desk, although the "plane made a direct hit on his office while he was looking at it approach out his window, and escaped without a burn.
9/11 First Reponder / Fireman John Shroeder recounts his experience and questions the official story. This is ground-breaking testimony! Let's spread this to the four corners of the Earth. Please REPOST!!
Excerpt from Dr. Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham, The Myth of Repressed Memory (St. Martin's Press, 1994)
Dr. Loftus is professor of psychology at UC-Irvine and University of Washington and a prominent expert on memory.
She has written other books and articles that may be more pertinent, but I have a copy of this book, and the below passage summarizes some of her findings that I think are relevant to consideration of 9/11 eyewitness accounts.
This excerpt describes Dr. Loftus' testimony on behalf of a man prosecuted for murdering his daughter's friend twenty years earlier, based solely on his daughter's accusation that she now remembered her father killing her friend.
I took the stand . . . and for two hours discussed my experiments investigating memory acquisition. I explained to the court that memory fades with time, losing detail and accuracy; as time goes by, the weakened memories are increasingly vulnerable to "post-event information" -- facts, ideas, inferences, and opinions that become available to a witness after an event is completely over. I told the jury about a series of experiments I conducted featuring a shocking film simulation of a robbery. At the end of the short film, a child is shot in the face. Subjects who watched the film with the shocking ending were able to recall details with significantly less accuracy than subjects who watched a similar film without the violent ending.
This study, I explained, tells us about the distortions that can occur in the acquisition stage of memory, when an event occurs and information is laid down in the memory system. Other studies tell us about the retention and retrieval stages of memory, after a period of time goes by and we are asked to recall a particular event or experience. Hundreds of experiments involving tens of thousands of individuals have shown that post-event information can become incorporated into memory and contaminate, supplement, or distort the original memory.
I described a study I'd conducted in which subjects watched a film of a robbery involving a shooting and were then exposed to a television account of the event which contained erroneous details. When asked to recount what happened during the robbery, many subjects incorporated erroneous details from the television report into their account. Once these details were inserted into a person's mind through the technique of exposure to post-event information, they were adopted as the truth and protected as fiercely as the "real," original details. Subjects typically resisted any suggestion that their richly detailed memories might have been flawed or contaminated and asserted with great confidence what their revised and adapted memories told them they saw.
I now see that Dr. Loftus has a number of papers online here: