Faking The Pentagon Parking Lot Videos And The Fake White Smoke Trail

Originally posted by moonwilson
I had a friend, who was working in the Pentagon at the time, who was in the parking lot and saw the plane come over and slam into the building with his own two eyes. He's a civilian contractor who works for the Air Force- he's not military, and he's not a spook. Just a paper pusher. He said it happened really fast- a huge plane roared in and WHAM

the problem with what you say is this as has been pointed out by craig et al...

-You and your friend are anonymous
-You and your friends story has not been verified
-You and your friends story contains inconsistencies and contradictions to other witnesses
-Your friends exact location has not been made known
-Your friends PoV has not been made known
-The plane appoached on the north side of the Citgo, pulled up, and was seen flying around the south parking lot AFTER the explosion.

..therefore you and your friend are NOT genuine witnesses to a "plane crash" and what you're saying is nothing more than an assertion or claim for which you have no real or verifiable or scientific-based evidence to support.

so what makes you and your friends story any different from the thousands of others who make such ASSERTIONS over the past 9 years?

you have the right to state your opinion and may be sincere in claiming what you were told by your friend.. but its useless information and nothing but an OPINION unless you can back it back with REAL evidence, facts, science, and official testimony.

in the real world and in a real investigation and attempt to discover the TRUTH, ones OPINION is worthless especially in this case.

Why would he lie?

For the SAME reason LLOYD LIED.

Or it falls under the same category of "witnesses" and the circumstances/situation surrounding others who claim to have seen the impact but upon reflection or a closer analysis, it turns out they DEDUCED it... and thats not evidence.

Or as pointed out, perhaps your story or your friends story isn't real.

therefore the only way you can come to a forum like this and make the type of assertion you are and be taken SERIOUSLY, is to offer more than wild assertions, opinions and commentary.

It's not like he goes around telling his tale to anyone who will listen. He just told his friends and family about it, because he was pretty shaken up.

if thats true, then surely he can get past the shaken up bit after 9 YEARS! and officially STEP FORWARD to contribute valuable information that could help unravel the mystery and clear up the controversy.

Isn't the TRUTH of 911 worth his time to come forward?

thats what a true patriot would do.

or is he gonna sit back like the rest of the sheep and keep silent because he's too busy to be bothered to give such vital testimony?

so where is he? who is he? whats HIS story, not YOUR story of HIS story?

if what you say is TRUTH, you or your friend would make an effort to contribute INFORMATION since he's supposedly an EYE WITNESS.

and we're supposed to believe this eye witness friend of yours was at the PENTAGON but was never interviewed? R u serious?

There were a lot of people who saw it happen- there are 30,000 plus people who work in that building, and many of them were outside in the parking lot when it happened.

thats an unverifiable and wild assertion for which you have no evidence or proof whatsoever to support.

with all due respect sir, Unless you're willing to present supporting evidence and/ or do the type of investigation similar to CIT which has now PROVEN the NOC, I don't see any reason to believe or take anything you say here seriously.

The Pentagon is not exactly concealed- it's within plain view of several highways, residential buildings etc.
And it's freaking huge. I used to drive by the Pentagon all the time- I lived in Arlington for several years around 9-11. I drove by the Pentagon the day after the plane hit, and it sure did look like a plane hit it to me.

a) how do you know what a REAL PLANE HIT looks like? or what a PLANE like the one claimed to have hit, would have looked like?

b) prove that the most powerful govt and military on earth doesn't have the ability to make it look like a plane hit... they have the means and motive... for you to ignore that fact and blindly accept the OCT LIE in the face of mountains of evidence thats proven it false, is beyond bizarre, and laughable, if not suspect.

The hole looks small in pictures and in video, because it's hard to capture the scale of the building. It's HUGE. It's a lot bigger than it looks,
and it's hard to grasp the scale because of the huge parking lot area that surrounds it, there's not much to reference it by. The plane didn't do as much damage to the Pentagon as it did to the Twin Towers, because it's a totally different type of building

oh pulease, no it doesn't. The dimensions have been documented and what it shows is that the damage is NOT consistent with the boeing that was supposedly hit it and thats not even to mention all the OTHER evidence about the NOC which you still don't seem to realize makes the LOCATION where the HOLE you're talking about, an impossibility!

but there's plenty of visual evidence alone that refutes the excuse you're asserting and trying to rationalize.

if you can't comprhend it, there's no point attempting any further discussion with someone that doesn't understand nor wants to accept and acknowledge the facts that contradict your false logic.

It's not a glass-curtained office tower, it's a fairly low-slung, heavily-built steel and concrete building- and a hardened military structure to boot. Planes are built to be light. Light, fast moving aluminum vs. heavy concrete= not much left of the aluminum.

in both cases the DAMAGE isn't consistent with the laws of Physics that should have occurred.

its quite simple really. for some reason u dont get it.

A real plane, filled with real people hit that building.

except the facts and evidence proves otherwise.

but why would anyone go to incredible lengths to make it LOOK like it happened. When all it would take to make it happen for real would be a couple of guys with box cutters and cans of pepper spray?

and sadly like most, you believe the OCT on pure blind faith

Originally posted by Achorwrath

Originally posted by SPreston

posted by Achorwrath
reply to post by Achorwrath

 

showing people standing and pointing means nothing you have no frame of reference for their indications.

I will waste no more time with a person who has not bothered to watch the interviews with the ANC eyewitnesses.

witnesses.... you mean the ones that saw the PLANE hit?

Your ANC interviews neglect to mention that,

where are the witnesses that say it flew away?

interesting how you can exclude that information.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

Lets review again what Preston said to you which you continue to ignore...

Originally posted by SPreston
It is obvious that that you have never bothered to look at CIT's research nor the videotaped interviews with the ANC eyewitnesses. If you had, you would know that the aircraft could not possibly have flown level inches above the lawn and left the heavy white smoke trail, let alone knocked down the five light poles. the aircraft flew above them from Over the Naval Annex and banked to its right. It was not down inches above the Pentagon lawn creating a heavy white smoke trail and knocking down light poles as scripted in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY. The aircraft could not be above them and the Naval Annex and the Citgo and simultaneously inches above the Pentagon lawn hundreds of feet to the south. That is just not possible.

So once again your question, logic and argument are flawed and formulated without having a full understanding of the issue in CONTEXT that would answer what you don't understand...

why?

because as Preston has said...

Originally posted by SPreston
It is obvious that that you have never bothered to look at CIT's research nor the videotaped interviews with the ANC eyewitnesses

in which case I agree with him that we should.......

Originally posted by SPreston
waste no more time with a person who has not bothered to watch the interviews with the ANC eyewitnesses.

reply to post by matrixNIN11


How about all the eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit and didn't see a plane leave? Why does CIT ignore their testimony?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by matrixNIN11

 

How about all the eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit and didn't see a plane leave? Why does CIT ignore their testimony?

You STILL don't seem to understand the significance and implications of the NOC being PROVEN BY THE SAME WITNESSES YOU CLAIM SAY THEY SAW THE IMPACT when in FACT that wasn't what they ACTUALLY all claim.

Ignoring the issue of DEDUCING again for now, as Preston, Craig/CIT et al have explained, if the NOC is PROVEN, then for all intents and purposes that NULLIFIES what you're asserting regarding their claims they also saw it impact.

THE FACTS AND PHYSICS AND SCIENCE AND MATH SAY IT COULD NOT HAVE IMPACTED.

thats what matters FAR MORE THAN WHAT THEY "CLAIM" TO HAVE SEEN.

Eos

Ah I see, So someone who wants the truth REFUSES to look at all the evidence presented.

And anyone that asks for additional proof to his claims is not worth his time.

When were the interviews conducted? How long ago?

Has anyone applied the science of distance distortion? has anyone verrified the witnesses testimony with plotted positions and lines of sight?

No. and that is the problem.

For something to be fact it has to be verrifiable

If you have or CIT or ANC have not gone to the length to verify the point of view of the witnesses their spoken statments are little better than recalled hearsay.

This is why investigators of ANY event (crime, disaster, etc) want to interview witnesses as soon as possible. It prevents the natural loss of details that occurs. It also prevent suggestive recall.

This happens when someone does not remember the details and the interviewer fills them in.

Example - "You saw the guy running out of the store wearing a blue jacket right?"

This is a proven technique and has been shown to induce the witness to say things like. "Yeah, I remember he was wearing a blue jacket."

This happens because the person is searching for the memory and the suggestion allows the mind to fill in the blanks.

Source


So the witnesses interviewed outside of a certain window and with any leading or suggestive statments cannot be held as valid as the linked study shows

Witnesses interviewed outside of the time window should be asked to write the account completely without questions. It then must be compared to their original statments to see if there are any discrepancies and those are then asked for clarification and physical verification MUST be performed to ensure that the witness would have seen what they are saying.

Further it MUST be established that the witness has not been exposed to suggestive data.

To properly show that the NOC is valid; CIT, ANC MUST show ALL wittnesses interviews including ones that do not say they saw it and then plot out their locations complete with lines of sight. This will allow them to create a verifiable Circle of possibility of where the plane was.

Without this it is not evidentary proof.

I have asked for the plot and LoS of the witnesses and been told I am not worth the time;
IF your theory is true and you really want the truth you will find out this as it will cooborate your theory.





[edit on 19-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

Except most of the 13 CIT eyewitnesses and the 7+ extra witnesses reporting the aircraft Over the Naval Annex were interviewed way back in 2001 by the Center for Military History and the Library of Congress, and any trolls and pseudoskeptics and 'government loyalists' who bothered to look at CIT's research and videos would already know that fact.

The accounts of the ANC eyewitnesses now are essentially the very same as they were way back in 2001 on their censored original interviews. Currently their accounts are more detailed as CIT went over and over their recollections on site with a small model plane as a stage prop. After a judge ordered their accounts released in 2008 by FOIA lawsuit, CIT still managed to find them and re-interview them, even though their names were redacted in the releases by agents of the primary suspect.

In the same manner, somebody on the inside leaked the still frames from the parking lot security videos, preventing the 9-11 perpetrators from further photoshopping the videos, leaving the primary suspect stuck with two stupid looking propaganda videos, also ordered released by FOIA lawsuit, with a ridiculous heavy white smoke trail and an invisible highly reflective aluminum finish alleged AA 757, which should have been more visible than the photoshopped heavy white smoke trail.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/694cca2e5e33.jpg[/atsimg]

Even the inept jthomas did a better job at photoshopping the video still frames.
But he should have removed the fake looking heavy white smoke trail.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/48d006eea9cc.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 3/19/09 by SPreston]

Distance distortion? The aircraft was above Paik and Morin and the ANC eyewitnesses and Turcios and Lagasse and Brooks. It was also slightly to the north of some of them; not to the south. Distance distortion would not apply in their cases. Distance distortion would not matter to Sean Boger because he was looking straight at the Naval Annex from the helipad control tower, and the decoy aircraft was directly in line with the Naval Annex and above it and coming towards Sean Boger and then banking to its right.

However, if you ever manage to find any south flight path witnesses who are actually willing to go on video camera and verify their accounts, in their cases distance distortion would definitely apply. Many of those would be looking north, and seeing the decoy aircraft flying Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo gas station, and above the light poles and overhead highway sign in its flight path, distance distortion might fool them into believing the aircraft was much closer than it actually was. Distance distortion might fool them into believing the decoy aircraft was actually flying along the official Flight 77 path as scripted in the 9-11 Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY.

Distance distortion? Looking north towards the Citgo gas station and decoy aircraft.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/802ae7ff8622.jpg[/atsimg]

Of course no such witnesses have turned up, and several government loyalists who traveled to Arlington to interview some south flight path eyewitnesses came up emptyhanded and gave up the search. Perhaps the faithful believers currently inhabiting this forum will have better luck.



[edit on 3/19/09 by SPreston]

Again you post nothing but someone's created images.

Except most of the 13 CIT eyewitnesses and the 7+ extra witnesses reporting the aircraft Over the Naval Annex were interviewed way back in 2001 by the Center for Military History and the Library of Congress, and any trolls and pseudoskeptics and 'government loyalists' who bothered to look at CIT's research and videos would already know that fact.

Please post the link to the Library of Congress interviews

I would like to see them.

None of these interviews have been openly published but in 2008 a few dozen were released via FOIA with the names redacted.

So in essence this data amounted to nothing but a bunch of anonymous transcripts that have been sequestered, vetted, and provided for solely by the very suspect we are investigating in this crime.

Unless of course we could figure out who the alleged witnesses were, get a hold of them, and confirm their accounts first hand. Only at that point would their witness accounts become independent verifiable evidence.

Enter CIT (independent confirmation).

Of the few dozen transcripts released, only a small handful even claim they witnessed the plane as most were simply part of the recovery efforts or involved with the event in some other way.

source

Hmm only a small hand full of the few dozen with names redacted.

This means that the CIT interviews were conducted 7 years after the events

Again with suggestive comnets and questions.

You have yet to provide any credible evidence and even the PentaCon website cooborates that.

They also openly admit

The Center for Military History (CMH) reportedly conducted over a couple hundred interviews in the weeks and months immediately following the event

Bold and underlined by me for clarity.

So you do not know for a FACT that the plane was north of the former Citgo.

It is theory and one that does not fit the physical facts and multiple other eyewitnesses.



Again you have little more than theory, hearsay and personal attacks.

Originally posted by Achorwrath

So you do not know for a FACT that the plane was north of the former Citgo.

It is theory and one that does not fit the physical facts and multiple other eyewitnesses.



Again you have little more than theory, hearsay and personal attacks.

I'm sorry but it seems as though you are attempting to argue against evidence that you have failed to bother to view.

That is not scientific.

In fact it is extremely reckless and a very deceptive approach to discussion particularly given the extreme importance of the info.

None of the information we present is "hearsay".

Why?

Because we present recorded first-hand accounts to back it up.

We aren't asking you to believe us.

It is what all the first-hand confirmed WITNESSES who were really there all unanimously and independently report.
That is evidence.

The out of context media quotes that are cited to support the official myth of a plane impact are hearsay.

Please take the time to view the evidence in full before attempting to discuss it or else you reveal yourself as someone without regard for critical thinking principles and true skepticism while having no problem accepting what you are told by the government and media based on nothing but pure unadulterated faith.

Thanks.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


The flight path uncertainty is a minor point given the number of witnesses that claimed impact. Further, the CIT theory of demolitions during flyover has absolutely no evidence supporting it.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


I like how you spun the attack into the last part of it.

I have provided quite a bit of evidence to disprove your interviews,
In this thread and others.

Please research what happens to memory recall when suggestive questions are used.

You have not refuted that, which has been proven to have a 10% reduction in memory recall even within hours of the event.

By your own admissions you did not even recieve the eyewitness accounts until 2008.

Please explain how this "Because we present recorded first-hand accounts to back it up" (the recorded interviews conducted years after the event.

Are in anyway credible evidence?

Also selective evidence is not proof, to use your own words it is "reckless" to use portions of statements and not the whole statement.

I have viewed the videos you offer up as evidence and they are not proof of anything; they are leading edited intereviews with people done years after the event.

I have asked for a plot of the witnesses you interviewed with their locations and lines of site.

This will either support your claim or refute it.
It has not been provided and all questions for this have been ignored.

The physical evidence on the ground and at the site has also been dismissed and ignored.

Despite their being plane weckage, multiple witnesses of the plane flying over the highway and seeing the plane clip the poles none of these people are covered or mentioned in your findings?

This is a very serious omission for an investigation.

In any investigation you have to cover all evidence, not toss parts that do not support your conclusion out.

Yet this has been shown time and time again,

sPreston keeps saying 20+ people saw it fly the NOC route, yet when he posts up the numbers he says

Except most of the 13 CIT eyewitnesses and the 7+ extra witnesses reporting the aircraft Over the Naval Annex were interviewed way back in 2001 by the Center for Military History and the Library of Congress

No one has provided proof they were interviewed by either of those agnecies.
If you have the proof please provide it.

now according to pentacon you recived a "few dozen" redacted statements and only a "handfull" reported a plane.

Would you care to tell us exactly how many you recieved? How many are a few dozen? 3 dozen? 4, 5 ,6 dozen? How many are a Handful? 3,4, 10? You would think that you would want to have firm numbers to show how the majority of the statments supported your claims.

Yet hard numbers and statistics are missing.

You accuse me of lacking critical thinking

or else you reveal yourself as someone without regard for critical thinking principles and true skepticism

Yet using critical thinking and logic I have poked several holes in your proof.

Originally posted by Achorwrath


No one has provided proof they were interviewed by either of those agnecies.
If you have the proof please provide it.

Of course we did. We have provided transcripts and recordings along with CMH interview numbers and a direct link to the Library of Congress.

The fact that you don't know this only shows that you lied about viewing the evidence or else your attention span is too small to retain the information.

Either way I am not at liberty to hold your hand through the process since the information has been there all along.

But the real evidence here are the first-hand video-taped on-location independent interviews where questions were asked on an investigative as opposed to human interest level that are more important here anyway.

First-hand accounts are evidence.

Your hollow accusations against the accuracy of our reporting means nothing since you have cited no examples, provided no quotes, and have not provided a single instance where a witness claims we misrepresented their account.

The evidence we present is independent and verifiable. We provide names of all the witnesses so ANYONE can check with them direct to see if we lied or twisted their claims. Out of hundreds of obsessed psuedo-skeptic detractors out there who follow our every move you better believe one of them would have found out about it if we lied about a witness.

Surely the Pentagon police officers would be happy to speak out against us. The fact is that NONE of the witnesses we spoke with have said a single word against our reporting so you have NOTHING and your accusations are baseless and uncalled for.

Furthermore you have provided no evidence for anything at all let alone evidence countering what we present. You have only demonstrated that you have utterly failed to bother reviewing the information in full that you are desperately attempting to argue against.

Stop it.

now according to pentacon you recived a "few dozen" redacted statements and only a "handfull" reported a plane.

Would you care to tell us exactly how many you recieved? How many are a few dozen? 3 dozen? 4, 5 ,6 dozen? How many are a Handful? 3,4, 10? You would think that you would want to have firm numbers to show how the majority of the statments supported your claims.

Yet hard numbers and statistics are missing.

You accuse me of lacking critical thinking

You clearly don't even understand what you are talking about because you have not bothered to view the information.

We never said we "received" anything.

We sought out the witnesses from the released CMH transcripts who claimed they saw the plane.

THAT is all that I was saying from the part of the article that you quoted out of context and clearly failed to comprehend.

Seriously....please pay full attention to the information and make a relevant point with evidence if you have one but as it stands you have only shown that you haven't a clue about what you are trying to discuss.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Achorwrath


No one has provided proof they were interviewed by either of those agnecies.
If you have the proof please provide it.

Of course we did. We have provided transcripts and recordings along with CMH interview numbers and a direct link to the Library of Congress.

The fact that you don't know this only shows that you lied about viewing the evidence or else your attention span is too small to retain the information.

Either way I am not at liberty to hold your hand through the process since the information has been there all along.

But the real evidence here are the first-hand video-taped on-location independent interviews where questions were asked on an investigative as opposed to human interest level that are more important here anyway.

First-hand accounts are evidence.

Your hollow accusations against the accuracy of our reporting means nothing since you have cited no examples, provided no quotes, and have not provided a single instance where a witness claims we misrepresented their account.

The evidence we present is independent and verifiable. We provide names of all the witnesses so ANYONE can check with them direct to see if we lied or twisted their claims. Out of hundreds of obsessed psuedo-skeptic detractors out there who follow our every move you better believe one of them would have found out about it if we lied about a witness.

Surely the Pentagon police officers would be happy to speak out against us. The fact is that NONE of the witnesses we spoke with have said a single word against our reporting so you have NOTHING and your accusations are baseless and uncalled for.

Furthermore you have provided no evidence for anything at all let alone evidence countering what we present. You have only demonstrated that you have utterly failed to bother reviewing the information in full that you are desperately attempting to argue against.

Stop it.

now according to pentacon you recived a "few dozen" redacted statements and only a "handfull" reported a plane.

Would you care to tell us exactly how many you recieved? How many are a few dozen? 3 dozen? 4, 5 ,6 dozen? How many are a Handful? 3,4, 10? You would think that you would want to have firm numbers to show how the majority of the statments supported your claims.

Yet hard numbers and statistics are missing.

You accuse me of lacking critical thinking

You clearly don't even understand what you are talking about because you have not bothered to view the information.

We never said we "received" anything.

We sought out the witnesses from the released CMH transcripts who claimed they saw the plane.

THAT is all that I was saying from the part of the article that you quoted out of context and clearly failed to comprehend.

Seriously....please pay full attention to the information and make a relevant point with evidence if you have one but as it stands you have only shown that you haven't a clue about what you are trying to discuss.

Again without anything to refute the information I posted, your post here is little more than a personal attack.

You have not refuted ANYTHING I wrote.

Nothing and that is in reality what you have to back it up NOTHING.

As stated your inteviews used Leading and Suggestive questioning,

In a court room that is called a Leading Question and is normally thrown out.

In common law systems that rely on testimony by witnesses, a leading question is a question that suggests the answer or contains the information the examiner is looking for. For example, this question is leading:

You were at Duffy's bar on the night of July 15, weren't you?
It suggests that the witness was at Duffy's bar on the night in question. The same question in a non-leading form would be:

Where were you on the night of July 15?
This form of question does not suggest to the witness the answer the examiner hopes to elicit.

Leading questions may often be answerable with a yes or no (though not all yes-no questions are leading), while non-leading questions are open-ended. Depending on the circumstances leading questions can be objectionable or proper. The propriety of leading questions generally depends on the relationship of the witness to the party conducting the examination. An examiner may generally ask leading questions of a hostile witness or on cross-examination, but not on direct examination.

It is important to distinguish between leading questions and questions that are objectionable because they contain implicit assumptions. The classic example is:

Have you stopped beating your wife?
This question is not leading, as it does not suggest that the examiner expects any particular answer. It is however objectionable because it assumes (among other things) that the witness (1) was married and (2) had in fact beat his wife in the past, facts which (presumably) have not been established. A proper objection would be that this question is argumentative.

source
The Library of Congress and the CMH did not conduct interviews, they collected them from the investigating body (the the time the FBI).

I have posted proof of how the human memory responds to this type of questioning,
I have show how you chose witnesses at a distance too great to see any detail but you asked detailed questions.

I have asked for and again you have yet to respond to a plot of the location of the witnesses with their line of sight.

Yet you and all others fail repeatedly to provide this simple and easily verifiable evidence.

You also skip over the question of haw many transcripts were released under the FOIA (and play semantics with the statement).

You also fail to account for witnesses that directly saw the imapcts at the WTC and the pentagon.

Please stop twisting the information; your questioning techniques make all witness statements inadmissable in a court room so they wont fly here.

If you had anything to offer in the form or real and verifiable evidence you would present it. Instead you attack me directly.

I have not attacked you at all but have refuted your evidence in more than one case regardless of your clams to the oposite.

[edit on 20-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

The flaws of eyewitness testimony after the fact.

link

Link

Link

According to Marc Green:”Memory can change the shape of a room. It can change the colour of a car. And memories can be distorted. They are just an interpretation. They are not a record” [1]. This is what makes the eyewitness memory primarily unreliable for the court. It goes without saying that there are both accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Nevertheless, the probability of getting inaccurate eyewitness testimony may is still rather high and this is extremely dangerous due to the fact that the wrong person can be put in jail only because someone gave “inaccurate” information concerning the case.

source

Originally posted by Achorwrath


Again without anything to refute the information I posted, your post here is little more than a personal attack.

You have not refuted ANYTHING I wrote.

Nothing and that is in reality what you have to back it up NOTHING.

You have not presented any evidence to refute.

You have only put forth an uneducated opinion concerning information you have not bothered to view in full.

As stated your inteviews used Leading and Suggestive questioning,

In a court room that is called a Leading Question and is normally thrown out.

You making the accusation is not evidence.

You have not quoted me or the witnesses or made a case for this baseless accusation.

It is merely an excuse for you to continue to ignore the evidence that you haven't bothered to view.

All of the witnesses we spoke with agree that we presented their accounts fairly and accurately.

Obviously they know better than you.

Particularly since you have not even bothered to view all of their accounts in full.

The Library of Congress and the CMH did not conduct interviews, they collected them from the investigating body (the the time the FBI).

This is a completely incorrect statement proving you have not bothered to view the evidence.

You are 100% wrong and the evidence to prove it is provided in the articles and presentations that you are frantically trying to argue against without even having viewed them in full.

That is a very unscientific and rather dishonest way to participate in a discussion.

I have posted proof of how the human memory responds to this type of questioning,
I have show how you chose witnesses at a distance too great to see any detail but you asked detailed questions.

No you haven't because you have not bothered to reference any specific witness or any of the information presented because you haven't even bothered to view it in full.

That is a very unscientific and a rather dishonest way to participate in a discussion.

I have asked for and again you have yet to respond to a plot of the location of the witnesses with their line of sight.

Yet you and all others fail repeatedly to provide this simple and easily verifiable evidence.

Since most of the interviews were filmed on-site, on-location, showing their POV with overhead maps provided indicating their exact location all of that information already exists.

The fact that you don't even know this is further evidence that you have not even viewed the information.

It is not my responsibility to reproduce it for you in this thread just because you are hell bent on arguing against information that you refuse to view.

You also skip over the question of haw many transcripts were released under the FOIA (and play semantics with the statement).

I am not here to do your research for you.

The answer to your question has no bearing on the validity of the evidence provided.

If you think it does then research the answer and make your case with evidence.

As it stands you have only shown how you are extremely uneducated on the matter primarily since you have failed to bother to view the evidence provided.

You also fail to account for witnesses that directly saw the imapcts at the WTC and the pentagon.

I don't research the WTC or provide any evidence for that and I fully believe that planes hit the towers.

But the fact is that you have provided no evidence for anything at all at the Pentagon let alone refuted the evidence we present.

You are are assuming things and making sweeping generalized statements that really have nothing to do with the specific evidence presented.

Please stop twisting the information; your questioning techniques make all witness statements inadmissable in a court room so they wont fly here.

If you had anything to offer in the form or real and verifiable evidence you would present it. Instead you attack me directly.

I have not attacked you at all but have refuted your evidence in more than one case regardless of your clams to the oposite.

You have not refuted anything because you have not provided any evidence and you have demonstrated how you have failed to bother viewing the evidence that we provide.

That is a very unscientific and a rather dishonest way to participate in a discussion.

Originally posted by Achorwrath
The flaws of eyewitness testimony after the fact.

This has nothing to do with the evidence presented.

We have never claimed that eyewitness testimony is infallible and unless you are trying to claim that eyewitness testimony is always incorrect even when it is unanimously corroborated 13 times over then you really have no relevant point whatsoever.

Personal attacks are a weak counter to my statements

You dissmiss the evidence of how leading questions affect memory recall and still show no proof,

You have 13 people, out of how many?

about 89 The amount of eye witnesses I gathered who stated they saw an object crash into the Pentagon. The vast majority of the still available ones.

at least 45 The amount of eye witnesses who reported seeing a plane and described it with words like: 'airliner', 'big', 'silver', 'roaring', etc.

at least 23 The amount of eye witnesses who specifically said they saw an American Airlines jet. In all cases a large jet.

at least 22 The amount of witnesses who reported the noise of the plane was very loud to deafening.

at least 17 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a plane running down light poles when crossing the highways.

at least 12 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw and heard the plane increase its throttle at the last seconds.

at least 11 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a C-130H flying 30 seconds behind a jetliner.

at least 5 The amount of eye witnesses who specifically stated they saw the plane had its gear up.


at least 2 The amount of eye witnesses who stated that they saw a small corporate jet, without doing any creative interpretating [sic] of the witness accounts.

at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a missile. What the person thought he heard isn't relevant!

at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a military jet fighter at the time of the crash.

at least 0 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw a Global Hawk at the time of the crash.

at least 3 The amount of witnesses who reported the sound of the plane was quite noiseless. (One of them acknowledged it was the shock)

at least 1 The amount of eye witnesses who stated they saw the plane had it's gear down. (Indirect, said a wheel hit a pole)

at least 25 The amount of witnesses who have said something that might point to the use of explosives or incendiaries. (White flash, powerful blast waves which blew people through the air, molten glass, burning aluminium, [sic] spreading debris over hundreds of yards back to where the plane came from, including 2 engines, the missing plane itself, etc.)

Source

89 Vs 13 in favor of an Impact
45 Vs 13 who said "airliner"


eyewitness accounts

reading those a whole lot saw a something hit the pentagon and more saw a plane hit than said it flew north of the Citgo (7 years later)

Were these jsut the part of the 25 that thought it was explosives? If so that is called cherry picking the witnesses.

[edit on 20-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

reply to post by Achorwrath


I'm sorry but none of that is evidence.

It is a 3rd party classification breakdown of 2nd hand out of context media quotes that amount to nothing but hearsay.

Where is your forensic analysis of their true POV?

Obviously you have none because you have no idea where any of them were located and have not spoken with a single witness direct about anything. Only first-hand witness accounts are evidence and you have not presented any evidence at all.

Why do you dismiss scientifically validated independent verifiable evidence in favor of hearsay and pure faith in what you were told?

That is not very sound methodology particularly when it comes to a crime of mass murder that has been used as a pretext for permanent global war.

Why do you have such disdain for true skepticism and critical thinking principles?







[edit on 20-3-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
reply to post by Achorwrath

 

I'm sorry but that is none of that is evidence.

It is a 3rd party classification breakdown of 2nd hand out of context media quotes that amount to nothing but hearsay.

Why do you dismiss scientifically validated independent verifiable evidence in favor of hearsay and pure faith in what you were told?

That is not very sound methodology particularly when it comes to a crime of mass murder that has been used as a pretext for permanent global war.

Why do you have such disdain for true skepticism and critical thinking principles?

So interviews of what appear to be cherry picked witnesses (unless you can prove they were not) are better evidence than showing that those 13 represent an extremely small percentage of the viewing people?

There were almost 100 accounts on the second page I linked, You did not even read them yet you accuse me of not reading your evidence.

That is not scientific at all, you are not interviewing all witnesses nor are you viewing all evidence -

With your lack of any real or credible evidence and continued personal attacks on me (or indeed anyone that provides contradictory evidence and information) your theory begins to look less and less credible.


As to your commnet on the witnesses saying you protrayed them properly.

You missed the whole point, you have lead their recall of events, of course they think that - if you had taken the time to look over any of the information on witness interviews and suggestive questioning on recall you would see that.

It also furthers the posibility that they already believed a plane did not hit before you interviewed them.




[edit on 20-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

[edit on 20-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

reply to post by Achorwrath


You have not presented any evidence.

You have merely used google and presented a link to a bunch of unverified 2nd hand quotes that amount to hearsay.

Nothing you have said indicates to me that you have even bothered to view the evidence that you are furiously trying to argue against.

That is not scientific nor is it an honest approach to discussion.

Let me know when you have viewed the evidence in full and can address the information direct with counter-evidence otherwise there isn't much of a reason to continue this discussion.