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.

 

DoubleTree Motel Footage Finally Released

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
I posted the links on a previous posts. I ONLY counted the people that in thier quotes said that from looking at the plane they KNEW it was an American Airlines plane.
How is this unreliable? The only thing that was different was the ONE guy that said the landing gear was down. Remember that these 61 people werent sitting on a bus together. They ALL had different views of the plane. This is only the quotes from ONE website... there have been literally HUNDREDS of eye witnesses that stated that they saw an airplane.

Theyve done experiments on eye witness accounts, they are extremely unreliable, especially in situations like this.

"The most well known study on eye witness testimony was by Loftus(an American psychologist) in 1979 .This experiment has been repeated many times by psychology undergraduates in the classroom and has always come up with the same results. The students are shown a video of an incident( a car accident or bank robbery). They are then divided into groups in which some are witnesses and some are detectives.What the witnesses don’t know, is that the questions they answer are in different formats.

Witness 1 is asked open questions e.g. What colour was the car?
Witness 2 more closed questions e.g. Was the car blue or brown?
Witness 3 closed and leading questions e.g. The car you saw was blue yes?

Even when shown the film again, after questioning witness 3 will say they could have sworn the car was blue. If asked again 3 months later they will repeat the car is blue.Human beings have the capacity to fool ourselves that something untrue is true and stick to that idea stubbornly."

If eye witnesses are led in the questions, they will come to believe that as fact, even when its not.




posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conluceo
I really see no airplane, even from that angle you should be able to see an airplane, well there we have it. NO AIRPLANE.



:shk: simply because you cannot see the airplane from that angle does not necessarily mean that it was not hit by a plane.

"a bunch of pissed off muslims, what are you retarded?" - 9/11 Conspiracy, south park.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer

Originally posted by CameronFox
I posted the links on a previous posts. I ONLY counted the people that in thier quotes said that from looking at the plane they KNEW it was an American Airlines plane.
How is this unreliable? The only thing that was different was the ONE guy that said the landing gear was down. Remember that these 61 people werent sitting on a bus together. They ALL had different views of the plane. This is only the quotes from ONE website... there have been literally HUNDREDS of eye witnesses that stated that they saw an airplane.

Theyve done experiments on eye witness accounts, they are extremely unreliable, especially in situations like this.

"The most well known study on eye witness testimony was by Loftus(an American psychologist) in 1979 .This experiment has been repeated many times by psychology undergraduates in the classroom and has always come up with the same results. The students are shown a video of an incident( a car accident or bank robbery). They are then divided into groups in which some are witnesses and some are detectives.What the witnesses don’t know, is that the questions they answer are in different formats.

Witness 1 is asked open questions e.g. What colour was the car?
Witness 2 more closed questions e.g. Was the car blue or brown?
Witness 3 closed and leading questions e.g. The car you saw was blue yes?

Even when shown the film again, after questioning witness 3 will say they could have sworn the car was blue. If asked again 3 months later they will repeat the car is blue.Human beings have the capacity to fool ourselves that something untrue is true and stick to that idea stubbornly."

If eye witnesses are led in the questions, they will come to believe that as fact, even when its not.


Are you kidding??? Thats all you got is the COLOR OF A CAR???

Witness #1 on September 11,2001: Q:What did you see fly into the Pentagon?
A. I saw an airplane
Witness #1 on September 11,2004 Q:What did you see fly into the Pentagon?
A. I saw a space Ship

Witness #2 on September 11,2001: Q:What did you see fly into the Pentagon?
A. I saw an airplane
Witness #2 on September 11,2004 Q:What did you see fly into the Pentagon?
A. I Think it was the Good Year Blimp

Witness #3 on September 11,2001: Q:What did you see fly into the Pentagon?
A. I saw an airplane
Witness #3 on September 11,2004 Q:What did you see fly into the Pentagon?
A. It A Giant Octapuss

Come one...they may mess up the COLOR of the plane....In this study... did any of them FORGET it was a CAR????



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
Theyve done experiments on eye witness accounts, they are extremely unreliable, especially in situations like this.


I agree 100%, they can be unreliable. But when you say, especially in situations like this, the argument becomes empty.

We are not talking about a minor detail. In a court setting, witnesses drying to decipher if they actually witnessed the defendant commit the crime or not, is a little bit different. Eye color, facial recognition, etc., are all details that we can easily mistake.

Eye witnesses are prone to make mistakes and flub details of the event. I do not argue this.

But when we are discussing an airplane, slamming into a building, I think it is suffice to say that eye witness accounts are more than valuable.

I understand your leading us to believe that eye witnesses were pursuaded to say what they have said. But deciding if it was a plane or not, is not something we are capable of mistaking, in my opinion of course.

I stand by the statements of the eye witnesses.

[edit on 3-12-2006 by chissler]



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
Are you kidding??? Thats all you got is the COLOR OF A CAR???

Witness #1 on September 11,2001: Q:What did you see fly into the Pentagon?
A. I saw an airplane
Witness #1 on September 11,2004 Q:What did you see fly into the Pentagon?
A. I saw a space Ship

Witness #2 on September 11,2001: Q:What did you see fly into the Pentagon?
A. I saw an airplane
Witness #2 on September 11,2004 Q:What did you see fly into the Pentagon?
A. I Think it was the Good Year Blimp

Witness #3 on September 11,2001: Q:What did you see fly into the Pentagon?
A. I saw an airplane
Witness #3 on September 11,2004 Q:What did you see fly into the Pentagon?
A. It A Giant Octapuss

Come one...they may mess up the COLOR of the plane....In this study... did any of them FORGET it was a CAR????


Eh? It seems you didnt read my post.

"My reaction on the 2nd question would depend how its phrased, if it was "What airline was the plane" then I would believe them, if it was "Was it an American airlines plane" then the answer isnt worth the paper its written on."

You clearly don't understand the studies, when they are led, they actually believe themselves to be right, even when they are wrong. You should try understanding things before coming out with stupid sarcastic posts.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
I agree 100% can be unreliable. But when you say, especially in situations like this, the argument becomes empty.

We are not talking about a minor detail. In a court setting, witnesses drying to decipher if they actually witnessed the defendant commit the crime or not, is a little bit different.

Eye witnesses are prone to make mistakes and flub details of the event.

But when we are discussing an airplane, slamming into a building, I think it is suffice to say that eye witness accounts are more than valuable.

[edit on 3-12-2006 by chissler]
Theres no doubt there was something there but if the question was "Was it a cargo plane?" then the majority would have said yes and then come to have believed that even if they werent sure beforehand.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
Theres no doubt there was something there but if the question was "Was it a cargo plane?" then the majority would have said yes and then come to have believed that even if they werent sure beforehand.


I agree.

But deciding if it was actually Flight 77 or a Cargo plane because a little unrealistic in my opinion. Where did the passengers of the flight go, if Flight 77 did not go into the Pentagon?

Where is the plane itself? What of all the families who lost their loved ones?

Too far fetched, in my opinion of course.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Ok,next..........
Fterall werent there many more tapes from other locations?
Why not release those?
Yes the government has an obligation to prove its story too the people.
And showing the footage is not in "poor taste",as someone brought up.
After seeing the Trade Centers collapse and the attacks on Pearl Harbor,
showing the WTC getting hit by a plane should be no big deal to them.
So here we wait in hopes some other tape is released.

I still say INSIDE JOB.
And how is the "official" story proof?
Afterall it was put together by Bush himself,did you really think they would ever come to the conclusion of a inside job?



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer

Originally posted by chissler
I agree 100% can be unreliable. But when you say, especially in situations like this, the argument becomes empty.

We are not talking about a minor detail. In a court setting, witnesses drying to decipher if they actually witnessed the defendant commit the crime or not, is a little bit different.

Eye witnesses are prone to make mistakes and flub details of the event.

But when we are discussing an airplane, slamming into a building, I think it is suffice to say that eye witness accounts are more than valuable.

[edit on 3-12-2006 by chissler]
Theres no doubt there was something there but if the question was "Was it a cargo plane?" then the majority would have said yes and then come to have believed that even if they werent sure beforehand.


There was a PLANE that was Highjacked...there were passengers on this plane that called loved ones telling them that the plane was highjacked..... Hundreds of people SAW a PLANE fly into the Pentagon MANY of which stated that it was an American Airlines plane.... Parts of the plane were found where the Primer paint on the underside matching that of an American Airline plane..that along wit hother things..landing gear..engines......Do the math!



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
I agree.

But deciding if it was actually Flight 77 or a Cargo plane because a little unrealistic in my opinion. Where did the passengers of the flight go, if Flight 77 did not go into the Pentagon?

Where is the plane itself? What of all the families who lost their loved ones?

Too far fetched, in my opinion of course.


I don't know about that, Im not saying it wasnt the plane but eyewitnesses accounts arent proof it was a plane.

I haven't made up my mind either way because there's not enough evidence either way and I don't trust the eyewitness accounts because every experiment done on them have proved them to be extremely unreliable.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
There was a PLANE that was Highjacked...there were passengers on this plane that called loved ones telling them that the plane was highjacked..... Hundreds of people SAW a PLANE fly into the Pentagon MANY of which stated that it was an American Airlines plane.... Parts of the plane were found where the Primer paint on the underside matching that of an American Airline plane..that along wit hother things..landing gear..engines......Do the math!
You seem to be completely missing the point.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
So another bit of video gets released and its worthless, apparently.

Because it took so long to get released the assumption is that it was classified. This vid? why?

CTers will always claim that unreleased video is classified because it would prove their case.

When it gets released it says nothing. This is going nowhere. You will not prove anything. If it were not for the Internet you guys would have no means of research. The 911 conspiracy nonsense is a child of the Internet.

No doubt there will follow endless cleverly crafted pix etc don't bother guys.
Every-time I look at the stuff I either see it different or don't get it. Whether this makes me thick or unobservant it is still my right to decide.

SS out



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
The smell of Cloride..
911research.wtc7.net...




Even before stepping outside I could smell the cordite. Then I knew explosives had been set off somewhere.

We saw a huge black cloud of smoke, she said, saying it smelled like cordite, or gun smoke.



Anything else?


Anything Else? Yes Thich... I went to your link where one person said that.... and I followed it to this site:

911research.wtc7.net...

Eric Bart put together a massive list of EYE witnesses to what they saw. Not JUST what they heard or smelled....what they SAW!.... ie:


Anderson, Steve - From his office at USA Today. "I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."
www.jmu.edu...

Mrs. Deb Anlauf, resident of Colfax, Wisconsin, was in her 14th floor of the Sheraton Hotel [located 1.6 mile from the explosion], (immediately west of the Navy Annex) when she heard a "loud roar": Suddenly I saw this plane right outside my window. You felt like you could touch it; it was that close. It was just incredible. "Then it shot straight across from where we are and flew right into the Pentagon.
www.leadertelegram.com...

Benedetto, Richard Richard Benedetto, a USA TODAY reporter, was on his way to work, driving on the Highway parrallel to the Pentagon : "It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly.(...) I didn't see the impact
high bandwidth : digipressetmp3.teaser.fr...
low bandwidth : digipressetmp3.teaser.fr...


Here are some numbers I pulled together from this 911 research site where they list their witnesses:

61 = Number of People that stated they saw a plane
13 = Number of People that Identified it as an American Airlines Plane
7 = Number of People that witnessed the plane sped up prior to impact
2 = Number of people that saw people on the plane
7 = Smelled Aviation Fuel
2 = smelled cordite
7 = Noticed the landing gear was up
1 = Noticed the Landing gear was down

Anyway, thats my 2 cents about this Pentagon CT.


Anyone who says the plane hit the ground prior to hitting the Pentagon, drug itself across the lawn, are liars. Look at every picture possible from that day and there is NO typeof skid marks along the lawn of the Pentagon.

This video shows no conclusive evidence to either side of the story. What is exciting, however, is that CNN has actually begun to debate the story of the plane because of its coverage. Even questioning it allows for the public to notice a little more that what the American public needs more than anything is some sort of new investigation.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 12:27 PM
link   
One Witness does not discredit HUNDREDS OF OTHERS. One saw the landing gear down. Does that discredit ALL the others.

Seeker, could you please show me a picture the shows the lawn from an angle which shows the Grass leading up to the pentagon?

Thanks



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer

Originally posted by chissler
I agree.

But deciding if it was actually Flight 77 or a Cargo plane because a little unrealistic in my opinion. Where did the passengers of the flight go, if Flight 77 did not go into the Pentagon?

Where is the plane itself? What of all the families who lost their loved ones?

Too far fetched, in my opinion of course.


I don't know about that, Im not saying it wasnt the plane but eyewitnesses accounts arent proof it was a plane.

I haven't made up my mind either way because there's not enough evidence either way and I don't trust the eyewitness accounts because every experiment done on them have proved them to be extremely unreliable.


They did experiments on the witnesses of the Pentagon attack??
I challenge you to find me ONE experiment that shows that witnesses of the Pentagon Attack FORGOT what they saw.

Heck, I challange you to find me one experiment AT ALL done on the Pentagon Attack witnesses.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
They did experiments on the witnesses of the Pentagon attack??


No, I do not believe Flyer was referring to a Pentagon experiment. Flyer was referring to a separate experiment on eye witness accounts.


Originally posted by CameronFox
I challenge you to find me ONE experiment that shows that witnesses of the Pentagon Attack FORGOT what they saw.


See Above.


Originally posted by CameronFox
Heck, I challange you to find me one experiment AT ALL done on the Pentagon Attack witnesses.


I believe you have taken Flyer's post out of context.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler

Originally posted by CameronFox
They did experiments on the witnesses of the Pentagon attack??


No, I do not believe Flyer was referring to a Pentagon experiment. Flyer was referring to a separate experiment on eye witness accounts.


Originally posted by CameronFox
I challenge you to find me ONE experiment that shows that witnesses of the Pentagon Attack FORGOT what they saw.


See Above.


Originally posted by CameronFox
Heck, I challange you to find me one experiment AT ALL done on the Pentagon Attack witnesses.


I believe you have taken Flyer's post out of context.


Good Point.....

Yes it appears I took his post out of context. Sorry Flyer.

Flyer, please tell me why 3 of the floor planes were designated to attack an area....yet the 4th one was to be flown to a secret location, passengers eliminated....plane eliminated... so a Cargo plane can fly into it?



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by CameronFox
One Witness does not discredit HUNDREDS OF OTHERS. One saw the landing gear down. Does that discredit ALL the others.

Seeker, could you please show me a picture the shows the lawn from an angle which shows the Grass leading up to the pentagon?

Thanks


killtown.911review.org...

killtown.911review.org...

killtown.911review.org...



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
What Flyer means is that the style of questioning that witnesses were put through may make their anwers unreliable.

e.g. Question: What airline was the plane?

and Question: Did you see the American Airlines markings on the plane?

These 2 styles of questions have been proved to produce very different witness testimonies. The second question would make the witness more likely to say it was an AA flight, where the first question is open to any answer.



posted on Dec, 3 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
what I dont get is you have an airplane full of people calling their families telling them they are going to DIE, yet nobody had the guts to overthrow the terrorists with what, boxcutters? Sorry but thats what I don't buy out of all of it. That so many people would just roll over and willingly die, because some guys with boxcutter decided to jack their plane.

I can't imagine that 60 people collectively couldn't figure out how to get through a locked door to the cockpit.

Hey if the PA crash plane did it, then obviously it was possible for the other flights. So why didn't it? Are americans so complacent now that they will except their death without bothering to fight? How sickening such an idea would be.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join