Proper Investigations

Originally posted by hooper
You don't seem to understand. Simply posting what you think or percieve to be "factual" and then tacking on your conclusion is not sufficient . The strength of your position is not in the listed so-called evidence but the totality of your argument.

Sorry but its not what i think is factual, its what would hold up in court.

How come i can post facts and evindence with several proper sources and others cannot?

How come i can post photos with proper sources and others cannot?



[edit on 12-4-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
You don't seem to understand. Simply posting what you think or percieve to be "factual" and then tacking on your conclusion is not sufficient . The strength of your position is not in the listed so-called evidence but the totality of your argument.

Sorry but its not what i think is factual, its what would hold up in court.

How come i can post facts and evindence with several proper sources and others cannot?

How come i can post photos with proper sources and others cannot?

[edit on 12-4-2010 by REMISNE]

Actually, your concept of propriety is awful slippery. When someone else posts something recorded in the popular media it fails to meet your unfathomably high test for veracity. However, when you post some quote off the internet you expect everyone to accept it as if from the God's lips.

That being said, your "factual" postings are not necessarily in question. First, because it is the conclusions you draw from them that are in question and second you have displayed time and time again a double standard with regard to so-called evidence.

Originally posted by hooper
When someone else posts something recorded in the popular media it fails to meet your unfathomably high test for veracity.

Well the media does not have a very good track record for the truth.

Also they do npt post proper sources to support what they post.

However, when you post some quote off the internet you expect everyone to accept it as if from the God's lips.

But i can also post proper source to support what i post.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
When someone else posts something recorded in the popular media it fails to meet your unfathomably high test for veracity.

Well the media does not have a very good track record for the truth.

Also they do npt post proper sources to support what they post.

However, when you post some quote off the internet you expect everyone to accept it as if from the God's lips.

But i can also post proper source to support what i post.

Proper sources? Really? Not to argue, but really you have never posted anything that was better "sourced" then anyone else, in fact some of the stuff you have leaned on as "factual" is very suspect to say the least.

Besides, what is sourced? If I am in the media and I quote Mr. John Smith talking about his experience on 9/11 have I properly "sourced" for you? Or do you need access to my interview tapes?

Originally posted by hooper
Proper sources? Really? Not to argue, but really you have never posted anything that was better "sourced" then anyone else, in fact some of the stuff you have leaned on as "factual" is very suspect to say the least.

You mean the fact that i sometimes can post facts and evidence that disageee with the official story from the same sources that people use to support the official story.

Besides, what is sourced? If I am in the media and I quote Mr. John Smith talking about his experience on 9/11 have I properly "sourced" for you? Or do you need access to my interview tapes?

No i need the basic facts anyone with a basic common sense would need. Like who is the person being quoted and does he have an agenda, or has he been told what to state.

reply to post by REMISNE

No i need the basic facts anyone with a basic common sense would need. Like who is the person being quoted and does he have an agenda, or has he been told what to state.

Ok, this is good. So now, even if you have the persons name, the full quote, etc. you now want someone to prove a negative - that the person in question DOES NOT have an agenda and the person in question HAS NOT been told what to say and until you have recieved sufficient evidence to the contrary, all persons are assumed to be promoting an agenda and have been told what to say by others.

Wow, sounds like you have an agenda. Sounds like you are creating a protective bubble of deniability around your fantasy so as to ward off any reality that may accidently slip in.

If you hear someone say something that debunks your carefully held beliefs then you simply dismiss the statement by creating unsubstantiated doubt in the persons veracity. Neat, almost full-proof.

Originally posted by hooper
If you hear someone say something that debunks your carefully held beliefs then you simply dismiss the statement by creating unsubstantiated doubt in the persons veracity. Neat, almost full-proof.

Well it comes down to things like the witness at the Pentagon BEING TOLD it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon that make me want more facts about wahts going on.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
If you hear someone say something that debunks your carefully held beliefs then you simply dismiss the statement by creating unsubstantiated doubt in the persons veracity. Neat, almost full-proof.

Well it comes down to things like the witness at the Pentagon BEING TOLD it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon that make me want more facts about wahts going on.

So lets get this straight.

Somebody sees a big passenger plane crash into the Pentagon and describes the event accordingly. Now how is it that his truthfullness is questionable because at some point he learned that model number of the plane he saw?

If I witness single engine plane crash into the ocean and describe it to the press (which I did by the way) why would you then assume that I may be lying because I later learned it was a Cessna Model blah, blah, blah?

Again, it sounds much more like you are protecting your fantasy then establishing a sound method for investigation.

Originally posted by hooper
So lets get this straight.

Somebody sees a big passenger plane crash into the Pentagon and describes the event accordingly.

No, thats not what the witness statement was. He stated that they (him and a friend) DID NOT see what hit the Pentagon, they were told later it was a 757.

He also stated that he and his friend SHOULD have seen what it was.



[edit on 12-4-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE


THE witness statement? I was not talking about any particular witness or any particular statement. I was talking generally.

Why does it detract from the veracity of someone's initial statement if he/she later learns and repeats some then unknown detail of information? Like the example I gave before, if I tell the police that I saw a late model blue sedan leaving the scene of the crime, how does it detract from my original statement if I later learn it was a 2006 blue Ford Taraus?

That question is rhetorical, by the way, it does not detract in the least bit from the veracity of the original statement.

Originally posted by hooper
Why does it detract from the veracity of someone's initial statement if he/she later learns and repeats some then unknown detail of information?

Very simple, legally a witness statement should only contain what they saw NOTwhat they were told (called hearsay). A lawyer would have a field day destroying this witness statement in court.

It also raises the question of how many other witnesses were told what they saw.

reply to post by REMISNE


Were told "what" they saw? If I describe a big white passenger jet and then later learn it was a Boeing Model 757, does that constitute being told "what" I saw, or are am I simply learning some detail?

And if I were to sit in the witness seat in court and simply say that I saw a big white passenger jet plane crash into the Pentagon, how do you, as a legal eagle, tear that statement apart? Do you start accusing me of lying right away, or do you wait for your closing argument?

Originally posted by hooper
And if I were to sit in the witness seat in court and simply say that I saw a big white passenger jet plane crash into the Pentagon, how do you, as a legal eagle, tear that statement apart? Do you start accusing me of lying right away, or do you wait for your closing argument?

A lawyer would tear it up becasue the statement is on record and clearly states that "they were told later it was a 757".

His statement also goes on the say that him and his Air Force Friend should have seen it was a 757.

Also a lawyer would then go on to question all witness statements as to who else was told it was a 757, who it was and what was the agenda of the person telling them.



[edit on 13-4-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE

Also a lawyer would then go on to question all witness statements as to who else was told it was a 757, who it was and what was the agenda of the person telling them.

You real don't know a lot about how the legal system works, do you? Do you really think a judge is going to let a lawyer demand that a witness speculate on the political agenda of the person who told them about the plane that they witnessed crashing into the Pentagon?

Again, I am speaking in general, not about any particular witness.

Originally posted by hooper
You real don't know a lot about how the legal system works, do you?

Yes i do know how the legal system works. I have testified in court.

Do you really think a judge is going to let a lawyer demand that a witness speculate on the political agenda of the person who told them about the plane that they witnessed crashing into the Pentagon?

But the witness can state who the person was and then that person can be called in.

reply to post by REMISNE

But the witness can state who the person was and then that person can be called in.

Well, it doesn't quite work that way. Courts just don't go around demanding testimony from every Tom, Dick and Harry just because some lawyer wants them to. They must show cause and present some kind of argument that the information is relevant. Also, who do you call if your witness states that he learned about the plane model in the "press" but wasn't quite sure which outlet he first learned it from? Does the judge start issuing subpeonas to every reporter and editor of the thousands of national and international media outlets that were covering 9/11?

Again, how is it relevant to someone who testifys that on 9/11 he/she saw a large jet passenger plane crash into the Pentagon?

Originally posted by hooper
Again, how is it relevant to someone who testifys that on 9/11 he/she saw a large jet passenger plane crash into the Pentagon?

How do you keep ignoring the fact that the witness was told what he was supposed to ahve seen.

If i took you to court right now with what you have for ervidence to suporrt the official story, the official story would be laughed out of court.

Probably the majority of witness statments would be thrown out.

Originally posted by REMISNE
Probably the majority of witness statments would be thrown out.

Probably not.

See, for some reason, in your mind, if a person witnesses a plane flying into something, unless they knew the exact model of the plane, their testimony is false. Saying they saw an airliner fly into something is not good enough. They need to know exactly what model of plane it was, plus flight number, plus serial number for each part on the plane.

reply to post by REMISNE


What are you talking about? Do you think the totality of 9/11 relys only on the witness of one person?

And, as you have been told so many times before, the official story did go to court quite successfully. Maybe you should have been there to cross-examine all the witnesses.

Originally posted by gavron
See, for some reason, in your mind, if a person witnesses a plane flying into something, unless they knew the exact model of the plane, their testimony is false.

What is so hard to understand about a witness being told what they saw?