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.
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.
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?
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".
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.
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]
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.
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]
Originally posted by hooper
The subject of the OP is Shanksville, not the Pentagon.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 statements.
1. Who told the witness it was a 757?
2. How many other so so called witnesses were told it was a 757?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Its why a proper investigation must be done because witness statments are not considered releiable.