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.

 

Proper Investigations

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

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



They can say they saw an airliner hit the building. Being told what the particular model of the airliner does not change the fact that they saw an airliner hit a building.

Duh...




posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   

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


No, but the fact of the witness statment being in questinop also raises questions about the other witness statments.


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.


No their was only some exhibts at the first trial and NOT the whole officail story.

1. Was the 9/11 commission report there, YES or NO?
How about other agencies like NIST, FEMA?

2. Was thier reports from the main stream media, YES or NO?



[edit on 13-4-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


What are you talking about? Witnesses were not "told what they saw". The witnesses, whose original accounts varied later learned the exact model, flight #, number of passengers, etc. This does not mean that they were told what they saw. Get over it.

These witness testimonies would stand up well in court. They described what they saw. Not the details they learned later. They also learned the pilots name and the airport the plane took off from, that does not detract one iota from the original descriptions to the media about seeing a plane crash directly into the Pentagon. Maybe in your world these persons truthfulness is tainted, but in the real world their personal testimony about what they did see that day is perfectly acceptable.

This is why in some ways I really wish there would be a new investigation. It would last about 15 minutes. Soon as the world realized that this is the kind of nonsense that people want to have "investigated" the investigation would be shut down, with extreme prejudice.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Read the indictment. That is all you need to do. Posted the link once before for you, not going to bother again. Read the indictment of Mossaoui.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
What are you talking about? Witnesses were not "told what they saw".


What do you call it when someone tell a witness that it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon.


These witness testimonies would stand up well in court.


My lawyer would destroy most of the witness statements starting with the one that stated they did not know what hit the hit the Pentagon they were told later it was a 757.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
What do you call it when someone tell a witness that it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon.


I call it clarifying what model of airliner they saw hit the Pentagon. It does not change the fact that they saw an airliner.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
I call it clarifying what model of airliner they saw hit the Pentagon. It does not change the fact that they saw an airliner.


Not if the wittness puts that point in his statement.

A witness statement is only for what the witness saw and not what they were told. That is called hearsay.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

A witness statement is only for what the witness saw and not what they were told. That is called hearsay.



Correct. So when they say they saw an airliner hit the building, then that is the truth....they saw an airliner hit the building.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Correct. So when they say they saw an airliner hit the building, then that is the truth....they saw an airliner hit the building.


Correct, BUT they were told it was a 757. Something they DID NOT see.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


A Boeing Model 757 is not an airliner? What is it then?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
A Boeing Model 757 is not an airliner? What is it then?


But the witnesses did not see a 757. They did not know what hit the Pentagon, they were told later it was a 757.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by hooper
A Boeing Model 757 is not an airliner? What is it then?


But the witnesses did not see a 757. They did not know what hit the Pentagon, they were told later it was a 757.



Yes, they did know what hit the Pentagon - a big jet airliner. 757 is the model number of - a big jet aitliner - thank you for confirming the witnesses testimony and proving that a 757 hit the Pentagon.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Yes, they did know what hit the Pentagon - a big jet airliner.


NO thats not what the witness statment says.

I suggest you read the witness statement i am talking about.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Yes, they did know what hit the Pentagon - a big jet airliner. 757 is the model number of - a big jet aitliner - thank you for confirming the witnesses testimony and proving that a 757 hit the Pentagon.


EXACTLY, Hooper!

Great post! I don't think you could have summed that up any better!



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
EXACTLY, Hooper!

Great post! I don't think you could have summed that up any better!


NO thats not what the witness statment says.

I suggest you read the witness statement i am talking about.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


Just for giggles - please post that ONE witness statement that you are talking about. I don't feel like searching for it.

Would it happen to be the "witness statement" wherein the witness pointedly states that he didn't see the plane? Yeah, that was a great witness statement.

Tell you what, why don't you look at my witness statement too, - I didn't see the plane hit the Pentagon either but learned later on it was a 757, I guess that makes my what - a non-witness witness?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Just for giggles - please post that ONE witness statement that you are talking about. I don't feel like searching for it.

There is always this one:


Maj. Lincoln Leibner
Maj. Leibner drove in and made it as far as the south parking lot, where he got out on foot. "I heard the plane first," he said. "I thought it was a flyover Arlington cemetery."

From his vantage point, Maj. Leibner looked up and saw the plane come in. "I was about 100 yards away," he said. "You could see through the windows of the aircraft. I saw it hit."

The plane came in hard and level and was flown full throttle into the building, dead center mass, Maj. Leibner said. "The plane completely entered the building," he said. "I got a little repercussion, from the sound, the blast. I've heard artillery, and that was louder than the loudest has to offer.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Just for giggles - please post that ONE witness statement that you are talking about. I don't feel like searching for it.


Here is the witness statement from the Pentagon witness list.

911research.wtc7.net...
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,



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 




So your examination of "witness statements" is based on the in-depth examination of a statment made by somebody who admits he wasn't a witness.



Nothing more needs to be said.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
So your examination of "witness statements" is based on the in-depth examination of a statment made by somebody who admits he wasn't a witness.


But is still on the list of Pentagon witnesses. You keep forgetting that point, why is that?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join