Gage, Asner, Hicks, Griffin, etc. endorse Pentagon Investigation

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

What makes Hinks or Asner worthy authorities on what happened at the Pentagon and Boeing flight dynamics and AL77's flight path?

Why the appeal to authority?

All concerned citizens are "worthy" of determining the legitimacy of the independent verifiable evidence presented in National Security Alert.

Accepting endorsements from respected American citizens is not an appeal to authority.

You seemed to have missed the oh-so-subtle question asked. To whit (bolded to assist you with your reading) :

What makes Hinks or Asner worthy authorities on what happened at the Pentagon and Boeing flight dynamics and AL77's flight path?

If they weren't involved in the procurement of your 'independent verifiable evidence' then how're they to determine the validity of your own cherry-picked info of questionable veracity? They may choose to but that speaks to the quality of their 'endorsements'.

And you publicising such 'endorsements' is the appeal to authority.

reply to post by Fitzgibbon


Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what the word "endorsement" means but nowhere do you see me referring to anyone in the endorsement list within our scientific argument laid out in the presentation proving a deception on 9/11.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You just asked for evidence, I provided it, and you dismissed it.

You provided nothing, exactly as my post indicated.

Erik Dihle is a firsthand witness account to what people IMMEDIATELY first reported after the explosion.

That is direct evidence.

No, that's hearsay. Let me help you out :

Hearsay is information gathered by Person A from Person B concerning some event, condition, or thing of which Person A had no direct experience.

He has no direct experience with seeing the plane flyover (nor did anyone else), and just parroted what others said.

There is NO direct evidence anywhere in your post. You have proven nothing, you have never proven anything, and I predict you never will.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Fitzgibbon

 

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what the word "endorsement" means but nowhere do you see me referring to anyone in the endorsement list within our scientific argument laid out in the presentation proving a deception on 9/11.

I'm more than familiar with the word. I'm just at a loss as to why the endorsement of an 80-year-old poet and the endorsement of an 80-year-old actor are supposed to be meaningful if it isn't an appeal to authority on your part? And you haven't proved anything vis a vis 9/11 least of all a "deception".

reply to post by Fitzgibbon


80 year old poet?

Who the heck is that?

reply to post by Soloist


Incorrect.

Dihle was there and what he told the CMH is firsthand evidence of what people first reported.

You can choose to live in denial all you want but it won't change the facts.

The plane was on the north side and therefore flew away as reported by Roosevelt Roberts and others.

Oh never mind I just realized you are trying to diminish the credibility of the famous author/scholar/researcher Dr. Peter Dale Scott.

Yes he has written poetry too.


Let me try to spell this out for you one more time.......

We provide a very detailed and thorough case for deception with scientifically validated evidence all laid out for you in the presentation National Security Alert.

Nowhere in that presentation do we appeal to any authority or to any of the respected good people who have endorsed the effort.





[edit on 28-7-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Soloist

 

Incorrect.

Dihle was there and what he told the CMH is firsthand evidence of what people first reported.

Which is in fact by definition, hearsay of a flyover, not evidence of one. Who were the people? And where are their reports? Have they (the people who claim to have seen the "flyover") been "independently verified"? Or is this another attempt to steer away from that because you know your statement is simply not true?

Proof man, not hearsay.

Originally posted by Soloist


Proof man, not hearsay.

The north side witnesses and Roosevelt are proof.

Erik Dihle is merely supporting evidence that more people reported a plane flying away immediately after the explosion.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Erik Dihle is merely supporting evidence that more people reported a plane flying away immediately after the explosion.

Really? Who were they?

You won't get too far with your summary executions if all you have is "Some people".

How's that "Operation Petticoat"...umm...."Accountability" coming?

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by evil incarnate
The funny thing is that while I may bot back this lawsuit 100%, there is no evidence whatsoever that a plane crashed there, let alone the plane they claimed it was.

Of course there is. That is one of the Troother's weakest arguments, one that they cling to though, like a tenacious little wombat.

What is your experience in aircraft crash scene dynamics? How can you state that without any training whatsoever in aircraft mishap scenes?

Wow, you really are reaching here. Aircraft dynamics? What does that have to do with what I said? I said there is no evidence a plane crashed there, let alone THAT plane.

I look at all the pictures and see NO PLANE PARTS! Then, later on, they are able to get one plane engine on the lawn and take a picture. Where are the wings? One other engine? The bodies?

My second point you do not even address.

What is SOP for plane crash scenes and the identification thereof? I will give you a hint, it has to do with serial numbers. Was that done there?

This is what I mean by evidence...there is nothing in any of the footage, photos, whatever that show a plane has crashed there. You really are having trouble comprehending English words, aren't you?

What country are you from and what is your first language. Perhaps there is a valid explanation for why you feel so authoritative about NOTHING.


P.S. I thought that I would remind you of the question you are trying so hard to avoid in your race to say the least and be rude doing it.

Every 9/11 thread has people claiming the Truth movement is wrong. Did you explain why? No. Did you offer any supporting facts, witnesses, evidence?


[edit on 28-7-2009 by evil incarnate]

posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Soloist

 

You just asked for evidence, I provided it, and you dismissed it.

Erik Dihle is a firsthand witness account to what people IMMEDIATELY first reported after the explosion.

That is direct evidence.

Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going.
audio recorded source

And Erik Dihle's statement to the CMH under oath is admissible under trial or grand jury. His statement would be ruled admissible hearsay.

But not all out-of-court statements or assertions are impermissible hearsay. If an attorney wishes the judge or jury to consider the fact that a certain statement was made, but not the truthfulness of that statement, the statement is not hearsay and may be admitted as evidence. Suppose a hearing is held to determine a woman's mental competence. Out of court, when asked to identify herself, the woman said, "I am the pope." There is little question that the purpose of introducing that statement as evidence is not to convince the judge or jury that the woman actually is the pope; the truthfulness of the statement is irrelevant. Rather, the statement is introduced to show the woman's mental state; her belief that she is the pope may prove that she is not mentally competent. On the other hand, a defendant's out-of-court statement "I am the murderer," offered in a murder trial to prove that the defendant is the murderer, is hearsay.

Federal and state rules of evidence generally prohibit the admissibility of hearsay but make exceptions for certain categories of statements that inherently contain sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness. Some hearsay exceptions are not based on whether the declarant of the statement is available to testify; others apply only if it can be shown that the declarant is unavailable to testify. A witness who has died is unavailable. A witness who claims some sort of testimonial privilege, such as the attorney-client privilege, is also unavailable to testify for purposes of these exceptions, as is the witness who refuses to testify despite a judge's order, testifies to lack of memory regarding the subject matter, or is too physically or mentally ill to testify.

Hearsay Exceptions When the Declarant's Availability Is Immaterial [nl]
1.

Present Sense Impressions. "A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter," is admissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 803(1)). An example is the statement "That green pickup truck is going to run that red light."

2.

Excited Utterance. "A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition" is admissible hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 803(2)). For example, "The robber is pointing a gun at the cop!" is admissible.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law

reply to post by Soloist


The OS is mostly hearsay from cherry pick eyewitness nothing more.
That is all you have. Oh, but in your eyes those witness are the only one’s that can tell the truth. Everyone else’s witness are lairs, the OS of the alleged plane hitting the pentagon is a joke. First of all, the alleged plane does not fit the impact hole furthermore, the wings where never found and one engine just fanished into thin air there was not any luggage found, no serving trays no personal belongings NOTHING! All you got is the FBI making false claims and you are hanging on to every dripping word as truth. Some one convinced you that our government does not lie, and until you can understand that our government does lie, you will not hear, or look at the evidence that proves the government has lied about most of the events that happened on 911. All you are doing is defending hearsay yourself.

reply to post by impressme


Perhaps the OS supporters can learn something from other rightwing fringies. I keep hearing cries for Obama to just show the proof. OK....well prove a plane hit the pentagon.

They argue and argue but never actually do anything to prove their side. I say that if they believe that plane hit the pentagon, all they need to do is just show me the proof that convinced them. Otherwise they need to get a new line.

reply to post by evil incarnate

I total agree with you. What was so convincing? I like to see it, so I can believe the OS is true, and like you, I haven’t seen anything that proves a 757 slammed into the pentagon. Oh, don’t get me wrong, I saw all the videos and photos of the crash scenes, but, I didn’t find much that was convincing that a jumbo airliner crashed in the pentagon. Some of the photos could have been taken anywhere, in any building in any country. Where was the change of evidences that even proves some of the photos where taken inside the impact area of the pentagon? The government wants us to believe that this huge Boeing airliners crashed and exploded and burned so hot, that the building collapse in on it self. However, when one looks at some of the photos closely, one see a book on a stool laying wide open and not one page is scorch from the intense firer. It truly amazes me in the twenty first century, that there are still so many people gullible enough to believe in this nonsense, with all the available science that’s on the internet and the public libraries.
I really believe many people would rather believe in the lie, because it makes them feel safe. Even if the story is ridiculous, and sciences proves the events could not have possibly happened the way the government said it happened and they really know it. Some people just can not stand the idea that our government could be complicit in such a treasonable event and profit from it and walk away untouched by our laws and that is what bothers me the most at this point.

reply to post by impressme


Not to take this off topic, but it isn't only the Pentagon that is like that. Every single crash that happened on 9/11 seems designed to have the planes leave very little debris. Its weird.

reply to post by talisman


You are right and furthermore the FBI wants us to believe that they were able to walk inside all four airplanes with their DNA kits and collect all the hijackers’ DNA! Now anyone who really believes in that nonsense should have their head examine.

Our trustworthy government tells us that when the airplanes plowed into the WTC and the pentagon the firers were so hot from the burning jet fuel and office furniture and what ever, that they melted the steel structure and support beams holding up the WTC and the pentagon. We are supposed to believe this caused the buildings to collapse. The building all collapsed on top of the charred remains of the airplanes so how was it possible for the FBI to have retrieved any DNA? In addition, how did they connect it to unknown people who are claiming to be alive? How did the FBI know who to match the DNA to in the first place? There are too many holes in the OS and too many questions that our government refuses to answer.

Originally posted by SPreston
That is direct evidence.

And Erik Dihle's statement to the CMH under oath is admissible under trial or grand jury. His statement would be ruled admissible hearsay.

Wow. I can't believe you went against your buddy Craig on this one. But thanks for proving my point; it IS hearsay, and not "direct evidence".

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Soloist

 

The OS is mostly hearsay from cherry pick eyewitness nothing more.

Hi cashlink, why'd you change your name?

That is all you have.

That is simply not true. As a matter of fact NONE of the CIT's witnesses report a "flyover". Not one. How's that for "cherry picking"? The very people they rely on to help spin their little fairy tale did not see the plane fly away at all. Yet they tell you this happened, and with no proof that it did.

That alone would be enough for most people, wouldn't you agree? Then there is that troublesome Doubletree video, which also does NOT show the plane flying over. And all the photos, and all the debris, the scores of dead, ... I mean how in the world can anyone possible believe that's "all we have"?

Geez.

Oh, but in your eyes those witness are the only one’s that can tell the truth. Everyone else’s witness are lairs(sic)

Since the overwhelming majority report that the plane hit the Pentagon (including all of CIT's) I don't think they are liars. I think they are telling the truth; the plane impacted the building and was destroyed. So you are wrong about what I see through my eyes.

First of all, the alleged plane does not fit the impact hole furthermore, the wings where never found and one engine just fanished into thin air there was not any luggage found, no serving trays no personal belongings NOTHING! All you got is the FBI making false claims and you are hanging on to every dripping word as truth.

LOL! I wouldn't expect to see serving trays, so yep it MUST have flown over!

Some one convinced you that our government does not lie, and until you can understand that our government does lie, you will not hear, or look at the evidence that proves the government has lied about most of the events that happened on 911.

I will look at evidence, I assure you. But, there is none here. Nothing but hearsay. If you expect to convince people of this overly complicated, failure prone, poorly planned magic flyover trick then you're going to have to have something pretty rock solid to prove it. Not "some guy reported some other people saw this" while more than a hundred did not.

Is that evidence you accept? Or are you yourself so convinced that the government does lie that you will take that and run with it?

All you are doing is defending hearsay yourself.

Not at all, perhaps you should look up the definition of the word before you accuse me of presenting it as Craig did. Or better yet maybe take a long hard look at who it is you are putting your beliefs in without proof, eh?

Originally posted by trebor451
I value cogent and logical positions reached by intelligent analysis of data.

Casual readers to this thread will note that the relatively new ATS member, trebor, has not demonstrated cogent or logical positions on many occasions.

With respect to the Pentagon investigation, trebor made the following quote in this thread:

Originally posted by trebor451
I don't have to "prove" it because it happened.

Yes, that's right... trebor discarded cogent, logical thinking and showed us his faith based belief that the light pole hit Lloyde's taxi, after being struck by Flight AA77.

trebor can only base this belief on faith, as there is no official report that details the aspects of the light pole/taxi incident. trebor can not use any official data to support his belief. He's basing his belief solely on the word of Lloyde.

Clearly, in his alleged 25 years working as a DOD spook, trebor has shown that while he may value cogent, logical discussions, he's not able to participate in one without contradicting himself.

Is it any wonder that intelligence alphabet agencies are as corrupt as they are?