It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is this what the 4chan "alien" is distracting us from?

page: 8
88
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

If all the relevant data was not included in the NTSB report then the report was incomplete and inconclusive. All relevant data better have been included. If it wasn't then the report is unreliable and worthless.

NTSB cannot seriously expect to be taken at its word if they omit relevant data or because it must be assumed that they do and we, the public, just gotta have faith.




posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I didn't say relevant data, I said all data. All relevant data was included in the report. But there are things that aren't included in the report, that we don't see, because it's not relevant to the crash itself. We would only see those bits of data as part of the investigation.

This aircraft had problems with the tail prior to the crash that day. That may have weakened the tail, but the report on that may not have had every detail included in the final report. The fact that the tail suffered damage was included, but not every aspect of the metallurgical report.
edit on 3/1/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Maybe the NTSB report was right, maybe it was wrong.

Either way, it is not above scrutiny. It is still just another theory. And since witnesses dispute it, my first inclination is not to assume the witnesses were wrong. NTSB could be wrong.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Eyewitness testimony has been proven repeatedly to be unreliable. Whether it's in a robbery case, or a plane crash. Just because five people say five different things that disagree with the NTSB report, which is backed by facts recorded by the aircraft itself, doesn't make them right. There's a very good reason that investigators don't listen to eyewitnesses to determine a cause of an accident.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Got it. But some of these witnesses were trained observers...Fire & Police officials.

I do get it though, you think NTSB deserves all of the benefit of the doubt. I do not. You point to the fallibility of witnesses...I can't point to the fallibility of the NTSB, to you, because you give them all the benefit of the doubt.

....moving on.


edit on 1-3-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I've argued about many an NTSB report. It has nothing to do with giving them the benefit of the doubt, as it does with not jumping to instantly believing anything an eyewitness says. I believe facts and data. I don't immediately go to "the data is wrong, because John Doe says so, and he's a trained observer". Trained observers can and have been wrong in the past. Data doesn't lie. The interpretation of said data may be wrong, but data doesn't lie or make mistakes.

I get that it's the thing to not believe the NTSB, because they're the government, and the government lies. You can't point to the fallibility of the NTSB because it usually boils down to "Well the eyewitnesses said....."
edit on 3/1/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I haven't immediately jumped to any conclusions. I educated myself first on the official story and investigation, then I moved on to witness statements and theories that called the official story into dispute.

I am unwilling to give the NTSB the greatest benefit of the doubt. Not because it's 'the thing,' but because skepticism is intrinsic to evaluating many of the alternate theories and contradictory witness statements.

Also, I think it is far more of a 'thing' to defend official versions of anything because everyone knows there are no *official* checks and balances when it comes to criticizing official versions. Defend the official story....yep, you're golden. No other official effort will scrutinize 'the official story' of anything.

Again, just a difference of opinion between you and me.

I'm going to continue being critical of the NTSB. I hope you don't mind...but they have not settled everything in my mind.
edit on 1-3-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm just as critical of the NTSB when investigations are going on. When I read the final report however, and examine the data, I make a conclusion. You will never convince me that eyewitnesses are reliable. I've followed, and performed my own investigation into an accident too many times and seen far too many completely contradictory eyewitness statements. Eyewitness statements are useful, to give you a general idea, but when it comes to the final conclusion, they're not reliable.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm just as critical of the NTSB when investigations are going on. When I read the final report however, and examine the data, I make a conclusion. You will never convince me that eyewitnesses are reliable. I've followed, and performed my own investigation into an accident too many times and seen far too many completely contradictory eyewitness statements. Eyewitness statements are useful, to give you a general idea, but when it comes to the final conclusion, they're not reliable.


And you will never convince me that any government agency is reliable, honest, and/or forthcoming AND if a witness disagrees with or disputes their official conclusions, then the witness must be wrong or lying.

I mean we are talking about conspiracy theories suggesting the federal government was the perpetrator, complicit, and/or involved in a cover up.


edit on 1-3-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Except that I can point to a few thousand cases where the eyewitness was mistaken. Everything from plane crashes, to criminal cases. That's the difference. Data doesn't lie. Data doesn't make mistakes. There's nothing wrong with questioning the NTSB, but to say that eyewitnesses are right, just because they disagree with them, is a hell of a reach.


IN 1984 KIRK BLOODSWORTH was convicted of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl and sentenced to the gas chamber—an outcome that rested largely on the testimony of five eyewitnesses. After Bloodsworth served nine years in prison, DNA testing proved him to be innocent. Such devastating mistakes by eyewitnesses are not rare, according to a report by the Innocence Project, an organization affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University that uses DNA testing to exonerate those wrongfully convicted of crimes. Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony. One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong?



The uncritical acceptance of eyewitness accounts may stem from a popular misconception of how memory works. Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. On the contrary, psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them. The act of remembering, says eminent memory researcher and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine, is “more akin to putting puzzle pieces together than retrieving a video recording.” Even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witness’s testimony because fragments of the memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the questioner, leading to inaccurate recall.
Many researchers have created false memories in normal individuals; what is more, many of these subjects are certain that the memories are real. In one well-known study, Loftus and her colleague Jacqueline Pickrell gave subjects written accounts of four events, three of which they had actually experienced. The fourth story was fiction; it centered on the subject being lost in a mall or another public place when he or she was between four and six years old. A relative provided realistic details for the false story, such as a description of the mall at which the subject’s parents shopped. After reading each story, subjects were asked to write down what else they remembered about the incident or to indicate that they did not remember it at all. Remarkably about one third of the subjects reported partially or fully remembering the false event. In two follow-up interviews, 25 percent still claimed that they remembered the untrue story, a figure consistent with the findings of similar studies.

www.scientificamerican.com...


At an airshow in 1952, a supersonic fighter disintegrated in the air causing
the death of both crew and 29 spectators (Staff, 1952). Over 100,000 people
witnessed the accident. A public appeal was put out for witness accounts and
photographs to help solve the mystery, resulting in several thousand letters being
collected. Rivas and Bullen (2008) found “many of the accounts are touchingly
detailed and well intentioned, but the whole of the vast mail was of little use” (p.
186). The vital clue that led to determination of probable cause was supplied by a
cine film. The in-flight breakup happened in less than a second, and almost all the
eyewitnesses, including experienced pilots, gave grossly inaccurate accounts
when compared to the film record.

commons.erau.edu...


This paper even talks about American 587, and the eyewitness accounts. The eyewitness accounts of 200 people vary wildly. From the fire being on the right wing, to being on the left wing, to an explosion, to no explosion.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

If it was a distraction from something else entirely then why 4chan? of all places



One thing I had seen mentioned is that the alien pic is meant to hide something related to 9/11

Do you know what was in the image that would tie it to 9/11



9/11 was to hide some financial improprieties of high level players in government


Well you will be referring to the severe accounting problems by the DOD and 2.3 trillion uncountable, Bush and his 48 billion in defense spending which was all destroyed in the offices on 9/11 and killing budget annalists who were trying to figure out where it all went. Well it literally went into the black hole known as the "unaccountable budget" it is exempt from standard reporting requirements to the congress, Your money is handed over to a secret group in the military. It one quarter of the entire gross national product, 500 billion a year at least 1.023 trillion dollars every two years is handed over to these agency's and used in the black budget projects simply by passing congress. Its scary really the US congress has no clue.

Now your thinking whats he on about? How can so much money be unaccountable, Well nobody even knew the money existed. It's primarily funded by the UN and illegal government drug related activities like the Bush family and the smuggling of coc aine from off shore oil rigs into the US via shrimp boats through Florida.

All this money goes to what you guys call "the secret government" in the building and maintaining bases like Mount Weather or in this case the facility located at white tank



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
dont know if anyone is interested, but i found this on reddit:


Here's the most compelling theory I've come across with this. Remote controlled planes:
It's no secret that planes can largely fly themselves and have been able to do so for decades, and it is often said that they could even take off and land by themselves, but that people can still do it more reliably, due to sometimes suddenly changing conditions near the ground.

Around the early 2000s, a plane that could fly and maneuver itself without direct human intervention would likely have to be modified from a standard passenger plane; taking out seats, reinforcing certain sections, have bigger on-board computers, etc.

The theory goes, that the originally hijacked planes were switched along the way with likely identical planes that were either empty or filled with additional explosives/devices and steered remotely where they needed to go. The original planes were simultaneously taken off the radar or whatever and landed in an undisclosed location, taking all passengers away, either to deprogramming or likely worse.

According to this post, one of the original planes was spotted in Roswell, giving credence to this theory.

What happened to the people on the plane? Well, according to that particular theory, they most likely were disposed of to leave no trace.

My first question then was, well, why not just fly them into the towers directly? Why switch the passenger planes with empty RC versions?

If I had to guess, it'd be because there's less of a chance of your elaborate plans falling apart when you tell those passangers that you have to do an emergency landing for some inane reason, land at a remote airstrip somewhere, get them all in a hangar for a while and eliminate them at your leisure, rather than risking a last stand effort by the passengers who realize they're far off course and sabotage the plane to crash somewhere in the wild.


i really dont know what to make of it, but things keep getting creepy every time Im dragged back into this 911 mess. the math doesnt add up, thats all I know. lots of suspicious and odd details scattered throughout and this is just one more on the list.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Remote control would have been noticed. It would require significant modifications to the aircraft itself, that would have been seen by ground control, or the pilots doing their walk around. And if they were remote controlled, without anyone on board, what happened to the passengers that were supposed to be on board.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Right. And I cannot point to any official investigation into a conspiracy theory implicating the federal government because THEY DON'T HAPPEN.

Eyewitnesses discredited by people who may have motive to discredit them? Yeah, it's not a surprise that you can whip out this *cough* compelling research to discredit witnesses easily. Plus, I am sure some witnesses do get it wrong.

I've seen the 'witnesses are worthless' argument before -- usually out of some convenience -- and I have considered it, too.

You exaggerate on the witness discrepancies and their significance...some had better and longer views than others. The airplane was rotating....it doesn't alarm me there might be discrepancies on which side was burning/lost a wing first. The fact that one side was reported to be more damaged than the other is what resonated with me.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

We all know about Northwoods and the planning to blow up a remote airliner and that was in the 60s The technology has always been there. Military tech is at least 50 years ahead of whats in the public eye. That "theory" you just suggested would be way harder to pull off then driving Flight 11, 175, 93 into the Twin Towers & WTC 7. With that said i think you might be on to something though with AA Flight 11 being landed at "unknown" AFB although it would have to be one away from prying eye any suggestions?



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Read the article linked, I'm not exaggerating on it. They found 239 witnesses that saw the plane crash. Of those, 65 reported no fire, and 118 said there was fire. Of those,


7% said there was a fire in the right engine, 7% in the right wing, 6% in the tail, 41% in the fuselage, 9% in the left engine, 17% in the left wing,
14% in a miscellaneous area, 4% in an undefined wing, and 4% in an undefined engine


There were 105 witness about smoke, with 65 saying there was no smoke, and 40 saying there was. The NTSB reached no conclusion about smoke coming from the aircraft. The eyewitness breakdown was:


2% reported the right engine, 13% the right wing,
7% the tail, 29% the fuselage, 9% the left engine, 7% the left wing, 42% from a
miscellaneous area, 4% an undefined wing, and 2% an undefined engine


There were 41 witnesses that reported an explosion, boom, or pop prior to impact.

If you want to get snarky about the whole "there are no conspiracies, you go right ahead. I'll continue to show that witness accounts vary wildly. If you can show something that's different from the NTSB report, on any report, which can be done and has been done in the past, then go for it. Government accident reports have been overturned in the past, and even proven to be wrong, as in the case of the 737 rudder reversal.
edit on 3/1/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Agree to disagree. I have familiarized myself with the witness reports & the NTSB findings and I haven't been satisfied. If you have, great.

The unreliability of witness reports is not the end-all to the lingering questions. It's not.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, it's not. But relying solely on eyewitness testimony, is almost as bad as believing a report, just because of who releases it.



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Information on the victims of Flight 587 is minimal, in contrast to the victims on the 9/11 planes. An estimated 90% of the victims of Flight 587 were Domincans/Dominican-Americans. The passenger list of names reflects that and some people feel many of the names seemed contrived.





I should add that information on the victims of Flight 587 is not just scant, it is incomplete and sometimes inconsistent.

For example, the day of the crash of Flight 587, there was a series of very dramatic photos of a woman who lost a three year old granddaughter in the crash. The photos filled the news, that day and the days following:




The crash of an American Airlines flight shortly after take off in Queens brought pain and grief to this Caribbean city, as desperate, crying relatives streamed into Las Americas Jose Francisco PeM-qa Gomez International Airport .

"It can't be. No, it can't be," screamed Ana Rosa Hierro, 49, as she collapsed and was carried past television cameras to an ambulance, surrounded by crying relatives.

Hierro was expecting her 3-year-old granddaughter, Yoely Mejias, for a first visit. The girl was being escorted by a neighbor from New York because her mother couldn't fly.

Link

AND


Forty-nine-year old Ana Rosa Hierro (2nd R) is escorted out of the Jose Francisco Pena Gomez Airport November 12, 2001 in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic after learning her three-year-old grand daughter was aboard American Airlines Flight 587...


Link


HOWEVER, when the official victim list was released, it didn't include a 'Yoely Mejias.'

Link to final passenger list.




Also, Zaphod, I still find the above to be inexplicable and this is my own observation.

If "Yoely Majias' did not die in Flight 587, as was reportedly 'confirmed' to her grandmother ..what in the heII happened?

The grieving grandmother's photo has been used for more than a decade to reflect back on the tragedy of Flight 587, and in the days immediately following the crash. Why no follow up if her granddaughter was not actually on the flight?

This is the final passenger, cabin, and crew list as provided by American Airlines.

There is no 'Yoely Mejias' on the list. WTF?

How did this story slip through the cracks?



posted on Mar, 1 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MotherMayEye

No, it's not. But relying solely on eyewitness testimony, is almost as bad as believing a report, just because of who releases it.


Agree.

And that's why I am merely weighing eyewitness testimony along with other evidence...but not excluding it entirely based on the fact that it doesn't corroborate the NTSB findings.




top topics



 
88
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join