Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Not one of the eyewitness claims to have seen a large commercial airliner. Not one.


That's some cute word parsing there. Who do you think you are going to kid with that? All the witnesses gave there statements after it was known what crashed. So they didn't bother to repeat the obvious. I mean if you had been a witness and where standing there and a reporter if you saw Flight 93 crash would you have bothered to describe to the reporter what a commercial jet passenger plane looks like? No, of course you wouldn't you would assume you were talking to an intelligent adult who was familiar with the basic size and shape of a plane. Did any of the witness describe how the wings stuck out from the side of the fuselage? Did any of the witness describe the color of the sky as blue?

And I bet you are going to demand a new investigation based on the idea that none of the Pennsylvania witnesses statements that you can find using google include a basic description of a plane.




posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
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.


What I said was quite valid.

None of the witnesses describe a huge plane. One of the last people to see the plane said it was white, moldy, no rivets, no windows and was no bigger than her van. As she said she knows what a passenger jet looks like and what she saw crash wasnt a commercial airliner. Size of her van.

Goto 1:12 in the video.

[edit on 26-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



What I said was quite valid.


Oh its valid. And probably factual as well. Just irrelevant.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



What I said was quite valid.


Oh its valid. And probably factual as well.



Thank you. The fact is the crater in Shanksville was not created by a Boeing 757 as the eyewitness statements and crater features prove.

Thanks for playing.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
All the witnesses gave there statements after it was known what crashed.


Thats so funny.

Of course the witnesses are going to give same statments AFTER they know what crashed.

Again any half decent lawyer would have a fun fied day destroying these statements in court.



[edit on 26-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Uh, you forgot the part where I said that it was also irrelevant that the witnesses didn't bother describing what an airplane looks like.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



Of course the witnesses are going to give same statments AFTER they know what crashed.


Yes, you're right, the witnesses should have told those reporters their stories BEFORE the plane crashed.

And I guess you too want a new investigation based on the idea that none of the witnesses described the events before they happened.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Yes, you're right, the witnesses should have told those reporters their stories BEFORE the plane crashed.


No, the witnesses should have told thier statement without being told what happened by others. As it is now thier witnesse statments would be destroyed in court.


And I guess you too want a new investigation based on the idea that none of the witnesses described the events before they happened.


I want an investigation into why witnesses had to be told what happned and could not come up with thier own statements.



[edit on 26-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 



I want an investigation into why witnesses had to be told what happned and could not come up with thier own statements.


Witnesses described what they saw. I am not aware of any witness that was coached into thier testimony - do you have proof or evidence of witness tampering?



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 



What REMISE is describing is called LEADING the witness.
A query that suggests to the witness how it is to be answered or puts words into the mouth of the witness to be merely repeated in his or her response.

Here is an example. This women saw what crashed in Shanksville and she decribes it being as big as her van.
" No, what I saw was no jet, that would of blown me off the road, at 1130 that night the FBI came and asked how big the plane was, i told them it wan no bigger than my van.... FBI: You dont know what a Boeing 757 looks like."


[edit on 26-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]

[edit on 26-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Now be honest here.

Did she see "it" crash or did she just see something the same day as the crash? Was she at the crash site at 10:00am that day?



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Witnesses described what they saw. I am not aware of any witness that was coached into thier testimony.


No they all did not describe what they saw. At least one described SOMETHING THEY WERE TOLD LATER.

You have one witness who made the following statement.

Eyewitness Accounts

Cook, Scott P. We didn’t know what kind of plane had hit the Pentagon, or where it had hit. Later, we were told that it was a 757 out of Dulles,

I cannot fathom why neither myself nor Ray, a former Air Force officer, missed a big 757, going 400 miles an hour, as it crossed in front of our window in its last 10 seconds of flight.




[edit on 26-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Now be honest here.

Did she see "it" crash or did she just see something the same day as the crash? Was she at the crash site at 10:00am that day?



Are really that dense?

If you actually watched the video rather than add your 1 cent you would of heard her say " It banked to the right and crashed" (the van sized craft)


Here is the video again




[edit on 26-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by hooper
reply to


Are really that dense?

If you actually watched the video rather than add your 1 cent you would of heard her say " It banked to the right and crashed" (the van sized craft)

[edit on 26-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]


And if you had listened you would have heard her say they she did not see it crash, said it twice and then went on to say she didn't even hear it crash "for two days" whatever that means. She also described as fiberglass?? Also said it flew under the utility lines. 30'???

And the funniest thing with this video (and most of them are pretty funny) she never said what day this all happened!!!! She alluded to it by saying it was an upsetting day, but never said when this "observation" was made, date, time, etc.


I don't blame her I blame the bozoz who put together this piece of sheepdip. They should have spent a little less time editing in all the spooky music and the misleading statements and instead spent some time in school learning basic journalism.

So what do you think this unidentified flying object was that she described



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
And if you had listened you would have heard her say they she did not see it crash,


Kind of like several of the witnesses at the Pentagon that did not see what happepend but you still believe them.


[edit on 28-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
And if you had listened you would have heard her say they she did not see it crash,


Kind of like several of the witnesses at the Pentagon that did not see what happepend but you still believe them.


[edit on 28-3-2010 by REMISNE]


Nope, nothing like that.

She said, pointly, that she did not see that unidentified flying object crash on whatever day she actually observed it. Some of the Pentagon witnesses actually said they observed the plane crash into the building.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Nope, nothing like that. .


Oh so does that mean you do not believe the witnesses at the Pentagon or just the witnesses that statements do not agree with what you believe happened?



[edit on 28-3-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Nope, nothing like that. .


Oh so does that mean you do not believe the witnesses at the Pentagon or just the witnesses that statements do not agree with what you believe happened?



[edit on 28-3-2010 by REMISNE]


Huh? I really don't understand the question, if there is one in there. Of course you don't believe this woman as you have previously stated all eye witness statements are unreliable. So you believe none of the witness statements.



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Huh? I really don't understand the question, if there is one in there.


I was asking which witnesses you believe since the Pentagon also had witnesses that did not see what happened.

Do you just believe the witnesses that statments go along with what you believe happened?



posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
Huh? I really don't understand the question, if there is one in there.


I was asking which witnesses you believe since the Pentagon also had witnesses that did not see what happened.

Do you just believe the witnesses that statments go along with what you believe happened?


Are you asking about Pentagon witnesses that did not say they actually saw the crash or are you making accusations that some of the Pentagon witnesses that say they saw the plane crash into the building may have been lying?

Not all of the witnesses in Washington that day actually saw the plane fly into the building by their own admission. I don't have a problem with that, and that is one of the reasons in my statement I used the word "some". I try, not always successfully, to choose my words carefully.






top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join