Snoopy,

Why won't you answer the questions in my post above? They are not complicated.

Eyewitness testimony needs to dealt with in two ways. You either treat what everyone saw or heard the same, or you disregard it ALL because eyewitness testimonies can be unreliable. People need to stop picking and choosing what eyewitness reports they use for their argument.

Some say they heard explosions (some say they heard bombs and as with so many other things on this subject, the CTers have jumped on that "word". Although how your average emergency worker knows what a bomb actually sounds like is another matter. Perhaps they were in the armed forces at an earlier point in their lives - has anyone bothered to check that with regards to "bomb" reports? Anyway, I digress...) some say they just heard a building coming down.

Who is right? Will those who really want to know examine every eyewitness testimony individually, or scrap them all and look for more substantial evidence?

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus
Eyewitness testimony needs to dealt with in two ways. You either treat what everyone saw or heard the same, or you disregard it ALL because eyewitness testimonies can be unreliable.

It is not that eyewitness testimony CAN be unreliable it provably IS unreliable.

The mind is an interesting thing. Ask any local detective to tell you about a simple fight they have investigated and have them tell you how many diferent stories they get regarding a simple single incident. They will tell you if they have ten witnesses they will not all agree on ANY specific detail. They will essentially have ten different stories.

The mind is malleable, moldable, easily manipulated and false memories are easily created or "implanted" purposely or inadvertently by the individual or outside forces.

Eyewitnesses are not worth a whole lot which is why the government agencies need to RELEASE THE TANGIBLE EVIDENCE FOR INDEPENDENT REVIEW.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Pootie

Eyewitnesses are not worth a whole lot which is why the government agencies need to RELEASE THE TANGIBLE EVIDENCE FOR INDEPENDENT REVIEW.

Thanks.

You are 100% correct regarding eyewitnesses, I was just being overly diplomatic And yes, hardcore evidence should always be top of the Wanted pile for any official or un-official investigation

So, with the eyewitnesses out of the way, for the believers of bombs in one, some or all of the buildings on 9/11, what do you want to see in order to prove the CD theory? Make a list And video of a building falling in such-and-such a way is NOT proof of the cause, it just shows what it led to.

Regarding a couple of earlier posts that talked about video of alleged CD as the buildings came down. Did I not hear many moons ago of that being the steel given way as it went down?

Originally posted by Muppetus Galacticus
...what do you want to see in order to prove the CD theory? Make a list ...

First of all, an international team of scientists, engineers, geo-political analysts, financial analysts and most importantly skeptics (to dog them on the hard questions) needs to be assembled. I assume they would want:

1. Certified dust samples that were not hosed down with millions of gallons of water. (This is more to protect the remaining rescuers than to determine CD).
2. Certified steel samples from 1, 2 and 7 (to be selected by the team).
3. Certified copies of all video taken at the Pentagon. It is unreasonable to assume that the Pentagon did not/does not have a VAST ARRAY of cutting edge surveillance equipment functioning.
4. Certified copies of all the FDRs and CVRs.
5. Subpoena power for Larry, Rudy, et. al.
6. Access to all airplane debris collected at all 3 sites.
7. Access to the REMAINS of the hijackers for DNA verification.
8. THE FREAKING BLUEPRINTS that NO ONE has ever seen for WTC 1 and 2.
9. The NIST code for their "black box" computer modeling.
10 Certified copies of ALL air traffic control communications on 9/11.
....

That would be a decent start. Anyone care to add?