The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No it is dimissed becasue witnesses statments do not make good evdience...

Not according to the law college at Cornell:

www.law.cornell.edu...

Check under articles VI and VII please. I think you will see that witness testimony is viable evidence.

Originally posted by gavron
Not according to the law college at Cornell:
Check under articles VI and VII please. I think you will see that witness testimony is viable evidence

Yes this is a good one from your own link. How many people at the Pentagon were knowledgable on 757s ?

Rule 602. Lack of Personal Knowledge

A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness' own testimony. This rule is subject to the provisions of rule 703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.

And this one.

Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses

If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness, and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue, and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

As far as witnesses though you do have the police officers who are good witnesses.

Oh, so you pick and choose which witnesses that fit the "conspiracy", and throw out the rest?

No one else has eyes and ears, I guess?

You said ...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
witnesses statments do not make good evdience

Perhaps you left out the disclaimer there, that only police officers are the "good witnesses" even though the rest of the OP's witnesses more or less agree with them where the plane was.

Talk about having it both ways!

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Soloist
Do you disagree with the OP, that based only on their witnesses the plane was flying North of the Citgo?

As far as witnesses though you do have the police officers who are good witnesses.

You mean the ones that said they saw the plane hit the building?

Those ones?

[edit on 24-8-2008 by discombobulator]

Originally posted by discombobulator

You mean the ones that said they saw the plane hit the building?

Those ones?

Ouch!

That had to have left a mark.

Sorry..not a one liner.

Ultima, have you ever been to an airport? Been around 300 feet from the runway, as you were in the terminal? If so, and you see a silver AA jet heading down the runway, you can instantly identify what it is, aye?

Now, are you seriously suggesting that the grown, experienced adults, who like you and probably everyone else in the country, have seen and can identify a passenger jet on sight, were confused about what they saw? They can't tell the difference between a large silver passenger jet, and a small plane, or a missle?

I absolutely guarantee, 100%, if I saw a jet collide with the Pentagon, I'd KNOW what sort of plane it was. If it was large, silver, lots of windows, and looks just like the many hundreds of planes I've seen in the sky, and at all the airports I've been to, I'd hazard a 100% correct guess it's a 747 or 757 that carries passengers. Just like all the witnesses who WERE sure of what they saw.

Ignore the ones that were at a bad angle. Feel free to dismiss the ones that caught it out of the corner of their eye. But don't sit here and try to sing some sad tune about how ignorant and stupid human adults are, that they can't identify a large PASSENGER JET, that's flying not a few hundred feet from them. That's not just ignorant, that's an insult to those who saw it.

Stop playing the fool please. If you have other data that might support your theories, present it. Otherwise, stop with the ludicrous charade of "omg my witnesses are reliable, and the ones that refute my claims are dumb morons." It's very irritating.

Originally posted by Soloist
Oh, so you pick and choose which witnesses that fit the "conspiracy", and throw out the rest?

Well its true that police officers make better witnesses because they are trained to notice things.

They are also trained on how to talk to witnesses to get the facts.

Originally posted by discombobulator
You mean the ones that said they saw the plane hit the building?

Those ones?

NO, the ones who stated the plane was on the other side of the gas station then the offical stories flight path.

Originally posted by fleabit
Ultima, have you ever been to an airport? Been around 300 feet from the runway, as you were in the terminal? If so, and you see a silver AA jet heading down the runway, you can instantly identify what it is, aye?

I was a crew chief in the Air Force. I can tell a plane flying by if it is a commercial airliner or a business jet. I can tell how many engines it has and where they are located on the plane.

Something the witnesses at the Pentagon had a problem with.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by discombobulator
You mean the ones that said they saw the plane hit the building?

Those ones?

NO, the ones who stated the plane was on the other side of the gas station then the offical stories flight path.

Well I've got two Pentagon cops who put their mugs on camera and stated unequivocally that they witnessed a commercial airliner impact with the building - William Lagasse and Chadwick Brooks.

Who have you got?

Originally posted by re22666
whatever you do, do not point out that he lied. apparently he has somethng over the mods because you cannot go around calling him a liar, even if you have solid proof of it around here.

In all seriousness mate, you need to catch him in a lie before you can call him a liar.

The comma was not in tide's original post, and it has since been edited by him to remove the confusion.

Furthermore, without the comma it indeed was a confusing statement. I had to read the sentence two or three times but then it became clear as I read further into his post.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Soloist
Oh, so you pick and choose which witnesses that fit the "conspiracy", and throw out the rest?

Well its true that police officers make better witnesses because they are trained to notice things.

Well, let's have a look at what Lagasse noticed, shall we?

1) Immediately recognised the incoming plane as a commercial airliner
2) Reported the plane as "silver"
3) Further described the plane as being an American Airlines commercial airliner
4) Stated that he watched the plane impact with the Pentagon
5) Described a "yaw" movement from the plane upon impact with the Pentagon
6) Observed wreckage from the plane inside and outside of the Pentagon
7) Observed at least one of the planes engines, "smashed"
8) Saw the plane approach from the north side of the Citgo station

So tell me. Did Lagasse, with his trained super-witness status, really notice all of these things?

Originally posted by discombobulator
Who have you got?

The same ones.

Too bad they debate the flight path.

Maybe some day you can admit the officila story is full of holes. But i doubt it.

Originally posted by discombobulator
8) Saw the plane approach from the north side of the Citgo station

So tell me. Did Lagasse, with his trained super-witness status, really notice all of these things?

Thanks for agreeing that he saw the plane on the north side of the gas station. Which debates the official story.

Now we just need to official crime scene reports to find out what plane hit.

Again Ultima, you ignore the obvious. I guess in your biased logic, everyone has to have agreed upon seeing the same thing, or it didn't happen, right? If a dozen people know exactly what they saw, why do a different dozen that are unsure nullify them? Your bias in trying to make your case is blaringly obvious, you might want to try a different method to try and make your point. You are failing.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Thanks for agreeing that he saw the plane on the north side of the gas station. Which debates the official story.

No. There are no eyewitnesses to a flyover. You know that. Stop lying.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Still havent take that IQ test?

I will take the IQ test if you take it first, i want to see if you can even get a score.

Well I took it two days ago.

I did not see you post your score.Post the test with your name and score on it.

I did all the above, now you said you would take the test, take it. Or did you take it already and your score was so low you will not post the results? I am guess you are around 80-90 IQ.

Originally posted by jthomas
No. There are no eyewitnesses to a flyover. You know that. Stop lying.

Just like a beleiver, do not even read what i posted.

I did not state anything about a flyover, i stated about the SIDE OF THE GAS STATION.

Maybe someday you beleivers will be adult enough to think for yourselves but i doubt it.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Iq test, or are you just going to ignore me. I personally think roger might be your father and you are posting his info on the internet. Maybe you are one of his uneducated kids. Again you are using the growup argument. Man, that is so pathetic.

Originally posted by tide88
Iq test, or are you just going to ignore me.

Gee that such an immature post for someone who was supposed to do ok on a IQ test.

I have proven to several people on here that my docuemnts are the real thing. If you were intelligent you should be able to figure that out too.



[edit on 26-8-2008 by ULTIMA1]