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.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by tezzajw
Sorry, it is not a claim. It is evidence. First hand knowledge. You may hand wave to your hearts content but that does not change the fact. Witness made a statement as to what he directly observed. The burden is on you disprove the testimony.
Originally posted by hooper
I and he are not further obligated to offer any additional evidence.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by scott3x
Sorry, there is no "allege" about it. The testimony stands until disproven.
Originally posted by hooper
He is not obligated to explain anything.
Originally posted by hooper
You are obligated to present direct contradictory evidence.
•She determined that the FBI had 85 videotaptes that might be relevant. Of those, 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
•Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
•Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."
•The videotape taken from the Citgo gas station did not show the impact.
•No videotapes were located from the Sheraton Hotel, though she located a videotape from the Doubletree Hotel.
•Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."
Originally posted by ipsedixit
The part that caught my attention was the following:
•Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."
This is what one might expect if the tapes in question were all shot as a result of the incident, i.e., by people who turned on their cameras when they saw the explosion.However, if there are any security videos among these, it is also what one would expect, if the airliner did not impact the building.
In other words, no one in the truth movement expects ever to see a video showing the impact of an airliner at the Pentagon, and the FBI summary of the contents of those videos backs that assumption up. They don't have such a video.
Originally posted by hooper
Sorry, it is not a claim. It is evidence. First hand knowledge.
Originally posted by hooper
Witness made a statement as to what he directly observed.
Originally posted by hooper
The burden is on you disprove the testimony. I and he are not further obligated to offer any additional evidence.
Originally posted by hooper
"I don't like that witness so I am declaring him officially UNRELIABLE"!
Originally posted by hooper
Then you wonder why no one wants to offer you any information.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You just asked for evidence, I provided it, and you dismissed it.
Erik Dihle is a firsthand witness account to what people IMMEDIATELY first reported after the explosion.
That is direct evidence.
Originally posted by hooper
Based on my observations, no, I do not need to "do better than that", however, apparently you do.
Originally posted by hooper
I am not engaged with the whole world trying to convince them they are all wrong, you are.
Originally posted by hooper
So if you want to dismiss Lloyd's experience and statements then you have to present something concrete that directly contradicts what he says.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by scott3x
Just as information - those "fish eyes" are omnidirectional lenses, they are simply camera covers. They protect the camera. The camera is a traditional CCTV, maybe be remotely controlled, however, this does not mean it is "all seeing".
Originally posted by tezzajw
Originally posted by hooper
I am not engaged with the whole world trying to convince them they are all wrong, you are.
I am not engaging with the whole world. Your pointless inflation to bolster your argument is noted. The casual readers of this ATS thread are not 'the whole world'.
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by tezzajw
More arbritrary hand waving.
"I don't like that witness so I am declaring him officially UNRELIABLE"!
Then you wonder why no one wants to offer you any information.