"Flight 93" Eyewitnesses Prove No Boeing 757 Crashed In Shanksville on 911.

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, a! its doing my Head in! would you Cats stop bickering? its hard for anyone else to jump in with out thinking we'r crashing a Party, i dont need no documents to prove im right




posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
The point of this thread was to show how many different reports came from these alleged eyewitnesses.

Not one of the describe a United Airlines 757 but something quite different in different positions and trajectory.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
The point of this thread was to show how many different reports came from these alleged eyewitnesses.

Not one of the describe a United Airlines 757 but something quite different in different positions and trajectory.



What do you mean "alleged" witnesses? Are you suggesting than some process may find them to be lying about seeing Flight 93?



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
What do you mean "alleged" witnesses? Are you suggesting than some process may find them to be lying about seeing Flight 93?


People usually do make the most unreliable of sources. Thats why investigations and done too.

Just liek the witness at the Pentagon stated "they did not know what hit the Pentagon they were told later it was a 757".



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
What do you mean "alleged" witnesses? Are you suggesting than some process may find them to be lying about seeing Flight 93?


People usually do make the most unreliable of sources. Thats why investigations and done too.

Just liek the witness at the Pentagon stated "they did not know what hit the Pentagon they were told later it was a 757".


You misunderstood the meaning of the word "alleged" in this context. To call someone an "alleged" witness means that you are implying doubt that they were a witness at all. Not that there testimony may not be accurate or precise. This calls in to credibility there witness not there description. That is another matter.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
You misunderstood the meaning of the word "alleged" in this context. To call someone an "alleged" witness means that you are implying doubt that they were a witness at all.


Yes and people stating that the were told later it was a 757 you could accuse them of not being an actual witness.





[edit on 24-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
You misunderstood the meaning of the word "alleged" in this context. To call someone an "alleged" witness means that you are implying doubt that they were a witness at all.


Yes and people stating that the were told later it was a 757 you could accuse them of not being an actual witness.

[edit on 24-3-2010 by REMISNE]


Uh, yeah, OK.

You may accuse anyone you wish of not being a witness on whatever basis you desire. Doesn't mean you're right. Just means that you are dismissing their testimony in toto.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
You may accuse anyone you wish of not being a witness on whatever basis you desire. Doesn't mean you're right. Just means that you are dismissing their testimony in toto.


Sorry but any half decent lawyer is going to destroy some if not all the witness statments in court, specailly when you have people stating they were told what hit the Pentagon that they did not witness it.





[edit on 25-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
You may accuse anyone you wish of not being a witness on whatever basis you desire. Doesn't mean you're right. Just means that you are dismissing their testimony in toto.


Sorry but any half decent lawyer is going to destroy some if not all the witness statments in court, specailly when you have people stating they were told what hit the Pentagon that they did not witness it.
[edit on 25-3-2010 by REMISNE]


The subject of the OP is Shanksville, not the Pentagon.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
The subject of the OP is Shanksville, not the Pentagon.


Well the subject was witnesses along with facts and evidence.

Witnesses include those at Shankesville.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



Sorry but any half decent lawyer is going to destroy some if not all the witness statments in court, specailly when you have people stating they were told what hit the Pentagon that they did not witness it.


Is this one of those "facts and evidence" that I am ignoring? Your legal opinion about the apparent strength or weakness of the testimony of witnesses that you have never met? Just admit that there are witness to the tragedy in Shanksville, Pa. People who saw Flight 93 and who testified accordingly. Did they know it was Flight 93 and that it was a Boeing 757 when they saw it? Of course not. First, of course, nobody can see a plane and be able to tell which flight number it has and very few people are qualified to see a plane for a few seconds and be able to tell you anymore than details within a wide parameter of generalities, such as it is passenger plane, it is a jet plane, it is light or dark color, and maybe be able to tell you it was large, medium or small.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Is this one of those "facts and evidence" that I am ignoring? Your legal opinion about the apparent strength or weakness of the testimony of witnesses that you have never met?


I do not have to meet a witness to tell by thier statement that it would be torn apart in court by a lawyer.


First, of course, nobody can see a plane and be able to tell which flight number it has and very few people are qualified to see a plane for a few seconds and be able to tell you anymore than details within a wide parameter of generalitiesas it is passenger plane, it is a jet plane, it is light or dark color, an, such d maybe be able to tell you it was large, medium or small.


Exactly, thats why witness statements are not looked at as very reliable evidence.

Also the fact that a witness was told later it was a 757 raises some serious questions to the valdity of their statment and other witness statments.

1. Who told the witness it was a 757?

2. How many other so so called witnesses were told it was a 757?



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper

I do not have to meet a witness to tell by thier statement that it would be torn apart in court by a lawyer.


OK, whatever. That is simply your opinion, nothing more. Unless of course, you insist on "factifying" it.


Exactly, thats why witness statements are not looked at as very reliable evidence.


I think that is too general of a statement. If an accident witness tells me he saw a late model blue sedan, well that could be construed as fairly reliable, all other things be equal. However, if the witness starts telling me it was a 1994 Ford Taraus with one missing hubcap, a black interior, broken right rear tail light, etc. and he wasn't standing there staring at it for an hour, then some red flags may go up. Doesn't mean its definetly not reliable but I would probably want to look at that a little better.


Also the fact that a witness was told later it was a 757 raises some serious questions to the valdity of their statment and other witness statements.

1. Who told the witness it was a 757?

2. How many other so so called witnesses were told it was a 757?


I really don't understand this logic. If I guy says he saw a big plane turn upside down and crash near the woods, how does it detract from his credibilty if he is later told that it was a Boeing 757? The two things are not connected. Would his witness testimony about seeing a big plane crash near the woods be called into doubt if someone later told him the pilot's name or the number of passengers aboard?



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I think that is too general of a statement. If an accident witness tells me he saw a late model blue sedan, well that could be construed as fairly reliable, all other things be equal.


Sorry but that is why police and courts do not take witness statements as reliable unless they are from an expert in a certain field or have proper facts and evidence to support the statement.


I really don't understand this logic. If I guy says he saw a big plane turn upside down and crash near the woods, how does it detract from his credibilty if he is later told that it was a Boeing 757?


It would depend a lot on who told him it was a 757 and the reason they told them it was a 757.

Either way the credablity of the witnesses statement is not reliable.





[edit on 26-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
Originally posted by hooper

Sorry but that is why police and courts do not take witness statements as reliable unless they are from an expert in a certain field or have proper facts and evidence to support the statement.


Say what now? I think you need to do a little of your famous "reseach" with regard to witness statements and the law. Really, you are pretty far afield here with this statement. If it were true then the US prison population would be probably cut in half.


I really don't understand this logic. If I guy says he saw a big plane turn upside down and crash near the woods, how does it detract from his credibilty if he is later told that it was a Boeing 757?

It would depend a lot on who told him it was a 757 and the reason they told them it was a 757.

Either way the credablity of the witnesses statement is not reliable.


OK, you really have to explain this foray into logic. Again, if someone states that they saw a large jet plane turn upside down and crash near the woods, how is the veracity of that statement challenged when after the fact they are told something that was unknowable to the witness at the time of the observation like the flight number, the pilots name or the make and model of the plane (and yes I do realize that there are some persons who can determine, by visual observation, the make and models of plane to a high degree of accuracity but for these purposes let us assume that our fictional witness is not one of these persons)?

Also, witness statements are not judge to credible or not credible, witnesses are consider to be either credible or not credible.



[edit on 26-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Say what now? I think you need to do a little of your famous "reseach" with regard to witness statements and the law.


Actually that is why we have CSI that do investigations EVEN if their are witnesses.

Its why a proper investigation must be done because witness statments are not considered releiable.


Again, if someone states that they saw a large jet plane turn upside down and crash near the woods, how is the veracity of that statement challenged when after the fact they are told something that was unknowable to the witness at the time of the observation


Because now you have a statement that is changed by outside influence.

Suppose another type of plane went down at Shanksville but the witnesses who did not know what type of plane it was were told it was a 757?

The witness at the Pentagon should not even be on the Pentagon witness list if they do not even know what happened or what hit the Pentagon and had to be told what happened and what hit the Pentagon.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



Its why a proper investigation must be done because witness statments are not considered releiable.


This statement alone is enough to dismiss this entire argument.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Not one of the eyewitness claims to have seen a large commercial airliner. Not one.

One of the last people to see the craft before it exploded on the ground claims it was no bigger than her van.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


I thought SH has a thread decrying the "no planers"?

The premise of that OP was that the "NPT" was disinfo...yet, here SH is advocating no plane? (No United jet, it would seem...)

I am confused by this anomaly.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
This statement alone is enough to dismiss this entire argument.


Well thats why CSI do investigations of murdurs even though there are witnesses.

Sorry if the facts and evidence get in the way of your fantasy.





top topics
 
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join