In reviewing eyewitness accounts of what occurred in New York on 9/11, I realized how many accounts were influenced or 'contaminated' by media coverage. Subsequently I discovered that a set of Port Authority police transcripts had recently been released to the New York Times.

These transcripts can be found at:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/

What better eyewitnesses are there than TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS MAKING REAL-TIME OBSERVATIONS AND REPORTS IN THE FIELD? After all, these kind of witnesses are ordinarily considered to be the most credible in ordinary court cases.

At the website there is a section called '9/11 Transcripts' which contain 50 transcripts (1,594 pages) from the Port Authority police. I methodically combed through all these transcripts, ignoring opinions from desk sergeants and all influences from media reports.

The following facts emerged:

1. No credible observations of airplanes in the air are contained in these transcripts.
2. No credible observations of engine noise are found.
3. No reports of separate impact sounds are found.
4. One secondhand report of plane debris was found.
5. No reports of plane holes are found.
6. All observations and reports of plane crashes into either tower, are contradicted by other observations and reports of missiles or other objects impacting the towers, or simply explosions.

A reasonable and disinterested reader of these transcripts, using only the reports listed in the transcripts, would come to the following conclusions:

1. An explosion occurred in Tower One which ignited jet fuel planted in the building.
2. Tower One was then struck by a missile fired from the roof of the Woolworth Building.
3. Multiple explosives were then detonated in Tower One, including at the B-4 level and near the PATH platform.
4. Tower Two was then struck by a missile fired from the roof of the Woolworth Building.
5. Multiple explosives were then detonated in Tower Two.

Any questions?