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.

 

Pentagon Transcripts, Official Records Belie ‘The 9/11 Commission Report’

page: 5
27
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   


The young people yelled: ?We were standing at the Pentagon Station, waiting for the train to come, and we saw a missile fly into the Pentagon!


So you didn’t see a missile.
You read an article from an author who didn’t see a missile.
But he claims he saw a stranger that said he had seen a missile.

That would be third party evidence. Would you want to be found guilty based on third party evidence?

Police officer speaking:
A man down the street heard from someone that you were speeding. That’s why I am giving you a ticket!

Is this what we are coming to?




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Another bit of trutherism bites the dust. An ananymous couple in their twenties with backpacks ( that really narrows things down ) saw a missile hit the Pentagon from a postion which had no view of the Pentagon OK.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
So you didn’t see a missile.
You read an article from an author who didn’t see a missile.
But he claims he saw a stranger that said he had seen a missile.

That would be third party evidence.


OK, so let's apply that to most people who believe the OS.

"You didn't see a jetliner.

You read the Commission report, (or heard a news report) written by people who didn't see a jetliner.

But they claim that people who saw (or heard) a winged object (described variously as a missile, a small commuter plane, a jetliner (etc, etc) either hit or miss the Pentagon) all saw "a jetliner which struck the Pentagon".

That would be third party evidence."

And it's switching issues to talk about hearsay and if it would stand up in court. My reply was in response to Soloist claiming that "no one saw a missile". Well, there is evidence that at least two people saw a missile, so his statement is incorrect.

Don't try move the goal posts now just because evidence is presented that belies that claim.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Another bit of trutherism bites the dust. An ananymous couple in their twenties with backpacks ( that really narrows things down ) saw a missile hit the Pentagon from a postion which had no view of the Pentagon OK.


Professor Edwards addresses this gripe in an addendum to his original statement.:




David H. Edwards
Professor of Anthropology
Salisbury University
Salisbury, Maryland
ADDENDUM 2/1/2006

Since the account of my experience was posted, there have been some who have taken exception to it on the basis of my statement of where, according to the witnesses, they had been standing when they saw a missile hit the Pentagon. I reported that they said that it was while they were waiting for the train at the Pentagon Station. But the Pentagon Station is underground. In light of this problem, I would add the following points.

1. There are, in fact, places from which the witnesses could have observed the events in question. I have been told that, for example, a person in the vicinity of the bus stop at the Pentagon station could have seen something from the location above the Pentagon station, which would have provided a view to something coming at the Pentagon from the South and partial West; likewise, a person standing outside above the escalator that goes down into the Pentagon City metro from the open patio looking out towards Macy?s would have been in a position to see the impact or something coming in.

2. There is a strong probability that the witnesses were from out of town (they were carrying hiking backpacks) and were unfamiliar with the area. They may, for example, have not known that there is a Pentagon City Station as well as a Pentagon Station. They might, therefore, have wrongly stated the station from which they viewed the event.

3. The witnesses were visibly upset and under extreme duress. This duress may have resulted in imprecision about where they were at the time. They may, for example, have said that they were ?waiting for the train,? which would imply that they were underground, when they meant that they were just about to go down to the station to catch the train.

4. They were repeatedly screaming about what had caused them so much stress ("a missile flew into the Pentagon"), but they were not reiterating the location from which they witnessed the event. Also, far from taking notes on what they were saying, I was having a distracting mental image of a nuclear missile strike on Washington DC. It may be, therefore, that they stated their location correctly but that I misinterpreted what they said.

5. Later, having been inundated with media images and explanations describing the 911-related events, I assumed, at least until recently, that they had misinterpreted what they had seen. It is possible, therefore, that I correctly interpreted what they said about their location at the time but later forgot, since this point was not reiterated over and over.

6. It would be impossible, however, for me to forget what this young couple screamed over and over at the top of their lungs about having seen a missile hit the Pentagon. I am absolutely certain about this, although I am uncertain, assuming that they were telling the truth, about where exactly they were when they had this experience.

7. I decided to post what I witnessed, because I felt guilty about withholding this information out of fear of being harassed by whatever institutions might have been involved in orchestrating the attack on the Pentagon if, in fact, the witnesses I heard were telling the truth and had not misinterpreted what they saw. I now feel relieved of that burden and am grateful to 911Truth.org for giving me the opportunity to recount my experience.


Addendum





edit on 5-1-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
Well, there is evidence that at least two people saw a missile, so his statement is incorrect.


There is no evidence that two people saw a missile. There is one guy who claims years later that he heard 2 people claiming they saw a missile. This is not evidence, sorry.

My statement is perfectly correct, it is nothing more than hearsay.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by Malcram
Well, there is evidence that at least two people saw a missile, so his statement is incorrect.


There is no evidence that two people saw a missile. There is one guy who claims years later that he heard 2 people claiming they saw a missile. This is not evidence, sorry.

My statement is perfectly correct, it is nothing more than hearsay.


Of course it's evidence. You just don't like it.

It's as much evidence as Mineta saying Cheney said X,Y and Z on the morning of 9/11.

It's of exactly the same type.

He heard Cheney say it, therefore it's hearsay. It's also valid testimony. Yet we are not in a court of law here.

The Professor heard this couple say things too. Therefore there is evidence that people reported seeing a missile. You just don't like it, so you want to discount it. You did the same when you claimed that those who believed in 9/11 conspiracies were a tiny minority, then when you were given evidence in the form of several scientific and non scientific polls showing that it was not a fringe belief - not a tiny minority by ANY means - but a "mainstream political reality" according to Time, you just said "I don't believe those polls". You also admitted "I'm not here to be objective".

You just discount any evidence you don't like.

But you can't legitimately do so. There is evidence people saw a missile. Deal with it.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
Professor Edwards addresses this gripe in an addendum to his original statement.:


Let's take a closer look at this, shall we?




1. There are, in fact, places from which the witnesses could have observed the events in question. I have been told that, for example, a person in the vicinity of the bus stop at the Pentagon station could have seen something from the location above the Pentagon station...


Could have, could have... means nothing. This is all just speculation... hell, they COULD HAVE been standing right in front of the Pentagon for all he knows, then again they just as well COULD HAVE heard an explosion and assumed it must have been a missile.


2. There is a strong probability that the witnesses were from out of town (they were carrying hiking backpacks) and were unfamiliar with the area. They may, for example, have not known that there is a Pentagon City Station as well as a Pentagon Station. They might, therefore, have wrongly stated the station from which they viewed the event.


Wow. LOL. Really? A "strong probability" because they had backpacks? There's just as much a "strong possibility" they didn't see a missile, given all the first hand verified eyewitness accounts.


This duress may have resulted in imprecision about where they were at the time. They may, for example, have said that they were ?waiting for the train,? which would imply that they were underground, when they meant that they were just about to go down to the station to catch the train.


They 'may have' not seen anything and just assumed as well. Seeing a pattern here yet?


It may be, therefore, that they stated their location correctly but that I misinterpreted what they said.


Or 'it may be' that this is all just junk.


I assumed, at least until recently, that they had misinterpreted what they had seen. It is possible, therefore, that I correctly interpreted what they said about their location at the time but later forgot, since this point was not reiterated over and over.


Wow, this guy is beyond confused.


It would be impossible, however, for me to forget what this young couple screamed over and over at the top of their lungs about having seen a missile hit the Pentagon. I am absolutely certain about this, although I am uncertain, assuming that they were telling the truth, about where exactly they were when they had this experience.


Which invalidates any of this as evidence.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
There is evidence people saw a missile. Deal with it.


No there isn't.

There is only evidence of some guy saying he heard people say a missile hit the Pentagon.

This is hearsay. You can keep claiming it's evidence that people saw a missile, but you're wrong. Feel free to look it up.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by Malcram
There is evidence people saw a missile. Deal with it.


No there isn't.

There is only evidence of some guy saying he heard people say a missile hit the Pentagon.

This is hearsay. You can keep claiming it's evidence that people saw a missile, but you're wrong. Feel free to look it up.


Thanks, I did look it up. We are not in a court of law, but on a forum, "evidence" in this context is not limited to the legal definition (which differs from country to country anyway). Evidence in this context means something which signifies that something may be true or may be the case. Yet seeing as you want to move the goal-posts by invoking the legal definition of hearsay and evidence....




Hearsay exceptions

Some statements are defined as hearsay, but may nevertheless be admissible as evidence in court. These statements relate to exceptions to the general rule on hearsay. Some (but not all) exceptions to the hearsay rule apply only when the declarant is unavailable for testimony at the trial or hearing.


Hearsay in United States Law

Well, the couple's identity is unknown. They are not available. But Professor Edwards is and he recalls clearly what they reported seeing. Does this prove categorically that a missile struck the Pentagon? No, but it is legitimate evidence that some people claimed to see a missile.

This was what you disputed. You were wrong. There is evidence. It is legitimate. In fact, there are many exception to the hearsay rule in court. Look it up.

But remember - we're not in court. This is the court of public opinion and you don't get the exclusive privilege of deciding what is legitimate evidence and what is not.

Discount it if you like, as you do all evidence you find inconvenient. But don't expect everyone else you accept your biased criteria.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 



No, but it is legitimate evidence that some people claimed to see a missile...


No, it proves that someone claiming to be named David H. Edwards wrote a letter to ( ) claiming to have heard someone else say that they saw a missile.

And I'm not even sure about the letter. The only reference I found was at some conspiracy sites. Getting weaker all the time.

As for admissible hearsay, it is generally limited to dying declarations or witnesses who died before trial. Not just something you say you heard from someone you don't know and couldn't find therefore can't find again.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
Evidence in this context means something which signifies that something may be true or may be the case.


LOL! Aww, how cute, you're trying to define the context so it fits your incorrect assumption about what most people consider to be hearsay and not evidence.



Well, the couple's identity is unknown. They are not available. But Professor Edwards is and he recalls clearly what they reported seeing. Does this prove categorically that a missile struck the Pentagon? No, but it is legitimate evidence that some people claimed to see a missile.


It only means this Professor Edwards CLAIMS that "some people claimed to see a missile".

It's still hearsay. Did anyone who was on the scene who directly saw the incident that went on record see a missile? No? THAT'S direct evidence, not hearsay.

I can claim all day that someone came in screaming that a tattooed purple pig with green stripes and a rocket strapped to it's back flew into the Pentagon. That doesn't make it evidence.



This was what you disputed. You were wrong.


LOL!



hear·say   

–noun
1.
unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.
2.
an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.










posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by Malcram
Evidence in this context means something which signifies that something may be true or may be the case.


LOL! Aww, how cute, you're trying to define the context so it fits your incorrect assumption about what most people consider to be hearsay and not evidence.


Wrong.



ev·i·dence (v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law. - Definition of Evidence



I and others here are using "evidence" according to the first two definitions. You and Hooper are attempting to limit the definition to it's legal sense applicable in a court of law. Well, if you hadn't noticed, we are not in a court of law, so the first two definitions apply.

However, you clearly didn't read the legal definition of hearsay linked to either, as you said of hearsay: that it is "not evidence".

When in fact:



"One major misconception about the hearsay rule is that hearsay is never admissible in court".




"Some statements are defined as hearsay, but may nevertheless be admissible as evidence in court."



Hearsay in US Law

There are exceptions, there are also differences between countries and even civil and criminal cases in the same country. You pretend that all hearsay is worthless as evidence. You are wrong.



"If the statement is being offered to prove the truth of what it asserts, then it becomes hearsay. When offered for any other purpose the statement is not hearsay."


So, if Edwards is insisting that this statement proves a missile hit the Pentagon, it is hearsay, but as evidence that some people claimed to see a missile hit he Pentagon, it is not hearsay. He is a direct witness of the claim. This is all he is reporting. It is valid evidence of that. Yet this is what you and your cohorts are trying to illegitimately dismiss. The original claim was "no one saw a missile", whereas there is valid evidence of people reporting seeing a missile. And this report can be directly testified to by Edwards.

And, to repeat:




"Some statements are defined as hearsay, but may nevertheless be admissible as evidence in court. These statements relate to exceptions to the general rule on hearsay. Some (but not all) exceptions to the hearsay rule apply only when the declarant is unavailable for testimony at the trial or hearing."


The couple who reported seeing a missile strike the Pentagon are not available, but Edwards is, and he can testify to hearing this report. His testimony is valid as evidence, certainly by the two primary definitions of the word "evidence" and quite likely even under the legal definition to establish the truth that some people reported seeing a missile strike the Pentagon.

That we have to go through this pantomime is ridiculous and shows just how far you OS disciples will go to illegitimately discount and discredit any information which in inconvenient to you.

edit on 5-1-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
You pretend that all hearsay is worthless as evidence. You are wrong.


ROFLMAO! Sorry, I know this is hard for you and all, but no matter how you try to convince yourself we are wrong, this hearsay is not evidence of anything more than what someone claims he heard someone say.

It's quite telling that you would stick to this so hard, instead of wondering why no one on site, who directly saw the plane crash into the building, and was willing to go on record with their names and jobs and make these direct statements that disprove this "missile" nonsense. Yet, you go on and on instead about some hearsay that cannot be verified, and which the author of the statement (made years later to a truther site no less) has made paragraphs full of assumptions.

No matter how you spin it, it is not nor ever will be evidence of a missile.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


More distortions.

You said no one saw a missile hit the pentagon.

I pointed out that there is evidence that some people reported seeing a missile. You were proven wrong.

I never claimed it was "proof" that a missile hit - this is your distortion to avoid admitting you were wrong - I said it was evidence that people reported seeing a missile. I have proven that Edwards testimony is valid as direct evidence that people reported seeing a missile, by all three definitions of the word "evidence".

You can "ROFLMAO" as much as you like, but I note you avoided dealing with the facts regarding the validity of hearsay as evidence in court or the actual definition of evidence.

Laugh it up, but it doesn't cover the obvious fact that your reply had no substance.


edit on 5-1-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram

You said no one saw a missile hit the pentagon.


Yep, that's correct, no one did.


I pointed out that there is evidence that some people reported seeing a missile. You were proven wrong.


There is no evidence that some people reported seeing a missile. There is only hearsay, that someone claimed to have heard 2 people saying that a missile hit the Pentagon. Oh, and a bunch of assumptions.

You pointed out wrong. You were proven wrong. Sorry, accept it and move on.



Laugh it up, but it doesn't cover the obvious fact that your reply had no substance.


LOL. Thanks, I will. Tell you what, why don't you come back around when you have some evidence of this mysterious "missile". Because as it stands now, that claim has no substance.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
This thread seems to have derailed quite a bit. All I wanted to add, is anti-Zionism or having problems with Israeli foreign policy is not anti-semitic. Israel has often conspired against other countries and committed many false flag events, such as the Lavon affair and the unprovoked attack on our intelligence vessel the USS Liberty during the six day war. Not to mention that many believe MOSSAD had a hand in 9/11 (myself included). So arguing over the veracity of a veterans site due to their "anti-semitism" is a little bit unsubstantiated.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by amcdermott20
 



Not to mention that many believe MOSSAD had a hand in 9/11 (myself included). So arguing over the veracity of a veterans site due to their "anti-semitism" is a little bit unsubstantiated.


Really? You think "many" believe that Israel had a hand in 9/11 but then say with a straight face that there is nothing anti-semitic about that? Now that is what "many" people would have trouble believing.

And no, discussing the veracity of an information source is not unsubstantiated. Not in the least bit.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join