Proper Investigations

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

Too bad the witness statement from Maj. Lincoln Leibner above destroys your own argument.

Originally posted by gavron
Too bad the witness statement from Maj. Lincoln Leibner above destroys your own argument.

Too bad you you cannot disprove the fact that they wer told it was a 757. Also the fact that they should have seen it and known what it was.

911research.wtc7.net...
Scott P. Cook
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. ...

reply to post by REMISNE


THE list of Pentagon witnesses? Since when did the government task 911research.com with maintaing THE witness list.

Also, I took the extra step and actually read the witnesses statement, he didn't see the plane and didn't claim to see the plane. Don't care what you call the list the statement came from. Its the statement that counts. Maybe you should read the statement. That's basic investigation practise.

Originally posted by hooper
THE list of Pentagon witnesses? Since when did the government task 911research.com with maintaing THE witness list.

Well in case you did not know, which it seems you do not. The witnes list is on several sites. It just happens to be the one i chose to post from.

The point remains that the witness was told it was a 757 and that they should have seen it and known what it was.

reply to post by REMISNE


The point remains, the witness says he did not see the plane. He wasn't looking in that direction. He learned later, like you and me and everyone else that it was, among other things, a Boeing Model 757.

The point also remains, this is totally and completely irrelevant. It is a trivial non-issue. With absolutely no bearing on the veracity of those that actually DID witness a large jetliner crash into the building.

Originally posted by REMISNE
Too bad you you cannot disprove the fact that they wer told it was a 757. Also the fact that they should have seen it and known what it was.

The major did see it, he saw an airliner hit the building. His statement would OWN in a court of law. It is a fact....he saw an airliner strike the building.

For some reason, you think everyone should know every make/model of aircraft. Silly Roger

[edit on 13-4-2010 by gavron]

Originally posted by gavron
The major did see it, he saw an airliner hit the building. His statement would OWN in a court of law. .

But did the major put in his statment that he was told it was a 757?

No, but the witness i posted did.

reply to post by REMISNE


You, of course mean that person, he was not, by his own admission, not a witness. Don't care what they call the list you found him, as your attorney would tell you, that's a moot point.

Think maybe we could talk about a witness who was actually, say, a witness?

Originally posted by hooper
You, of course mean that person, he was not, by his own admission, not a witness.

Then why is he on the witness list? Sorry but you cannot just wish the witness list away.

Think maybe we could talk about a witness who was actually, say, a witness?

Sure, and i am sure a lawyer can still find a problem with thier statement.

Why don't you pick one.



[edit on 13-4-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Then why is he on the witness list?.

You can witness an explosion (ie the sound of the impact, etc) without seeing the actual impact. Unlike the Major, who did see the airline hit the building.

Are you saying the Majors statement would not hold up in a court of law? That he actually saw an airliner hit the Pentagon?

Maybe you should look up the definition of "witness" and learn what all that could entail. You seem confused.

Originally posted by gavron
You can witness an explosion (ie the sound of the impact, etc) without seeing the actual impact.

So you do agree he should be on the witness list, thanks.

Also if you read his statment he does state that him and his friend should have seen the plane but the didn't they were told it was a 757.

Originally posted by gavron
You can witness an explosion (ie the sound of the impact, etc) without seeing the actual impact.

So you do agree he should be on the witness list, thanks.

Also if you read his statment he does state that him and his friend should have seen the plane but the didn't they were told it was a 757.

reply to post by REMISNE


And? What does this have to do with anything?

Two persons in the area, who theoritcally were in position to see the plane said that they didn't see it and later found out, like you and me and everyone else, that it was American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757.

Originally posted by hooper
Two persons in the area, who theoritcally were in position to see the plane said that they didn't see it and later found out, like you and me and everyone else, that it was American Airlines flight 77, a Boeing 757.

So funny and sad how you cannot understand a basic concept like the witness being told what they saw and putting it in thier witness statement.

Originally posted by REMISNE

So funny and sad how you cannot understand a basic concept like the witness being told what they saw and putting it in thier witness statement.

So funny and sad that you cannot understand a basic concept like a witness clarifying what they saw, and putting it in their witness statement.

That would be like someone saying they saw a man shoot another man with a handgun, being told later it was a Gloc, then saying later he saw a man shoot another with a Gloc.

It doesnt change the fact that he saw a man shoot another man, it just clarifies it.

Originally posted by gavron
So funny and sad that you cannot understand a basic concept like a witness clarifying what they saw, and putting it in their witness statement.

Sorry but he clearly stated he was told. Being told is something different then what he saw.

That would be like someone saying they saw a man shoot another man with a handgun, being told later it was a Gloc, then saying later he saw a man shoot another with a Gloc.

Correct, but being told later would be destroyed by a lawyer, because it was not what he SAW but what he was TOLD if its in his witness statement.


[edit on 14-4-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE
Correct, but being told later would be destroyed by a lawyer, because it was not what he SAW but what he was TOLD if its in his witness statement.

....looks like it wasn't destroyed in the Moussaoui trial.

Yeah, looks like he was destroyed

Originally posted by gavron
....looks like it wasn't destroyed in the Moussaoui trial.

Where was his statment entered into evidence?

Originally posted by REMISNE
Where was his statment entered into evidence?

Ah...but there is the beauty in it. If their defense lawyers were half as good as you THINK you are, then they would have brought this statement out. But apparently your skills as a retired NSA security guard are far better than a professional lawyer

Originally posted by gavron
Ah...but there is the beauty in it.

Wrong answer, the correct answer is that it was never entered as evidence.