Proper Investigations

Originally posted by REMISNE

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

You might want to re-read my reply, Roger. I did state that. It would help having a discussion if you actually READ the replies to your posts. It would be the adult thing to do.

reply to post by REMISNE


HE DIDN'T SEE IT. HE SAID HE DIDN'T SEE IT. SO HE WAS TOLD LATER WHAT HE DIDN'T SEE!

I really don't know how much simpler this can be made. He is not a witness to the plane crash by his own admission. I really don't care what the name of the website is that posted his story.

HE IS NOT A WITNESS TO THE PLANE. Therefore there is nothing to "contradict" if he says he found out later that it was a 757.

Originally posted by hooper
HE IS NOT A WITNESS TO THE PLANE. Therefore there is nothing to "contradict" if he says he found out later that it was a 757.

If he was not a witness to the plane why was he told what it was?

Originally posted by gavron
You might want to re-read my reply, Roger. I did state that.

So you agree then that the offical story was not on trial, thanks.



[edit on 14-4-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE
If he was not a witness to the plane why was he told what it was?

Let's say you are sitting in a hot tub at your apartment complex, when you hear a LARGE crash sound. Someone then comes up and tells you it was a car crashing into a bus.

When the cops come, you say you heard the car hit the bus. However, you didnt actually SEE the car hit the bus, you only heard the impact of something.

Originally posted by gavronWhen the cops come, you say you heard the car hit the bus. However, you didnt actually SEE the car hit the bus, you only heard the impact of something.

Yes and if you put that down on a witness statement that you were told it would be destroyed by a lawyer because of the simple fact that you did not see it.

Originally posted by REMISNE
Yes and if you put that down on a witness statement that you were told it would be destroyed by a lawyer because of the simple fact that you did not see it.

...only according to you. It would not change the fact that you heard the impact, which you stated. No lawyer can deny that fact.

Originally posted by gavron
It would not change the fact that you heard the impact, which you stated. No lawyer can deny that fact.

But it is a fact that he did not see it ,, which would not hold up in court.

Double post


[edit on 14-4-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE

But it is a fact that he did not see it ,, which would not hold up in court.

But it is a fact that he heard the crash....which would hold up in court.

Originally posted by gavron
But it is a fact that he heard the crash....which would hold up in court.

But his witness statement says that he was told what he was supposed to have seen. DESTROYED in court.

Originally posted by REMISNE
But his witness statement says that he was told what he was supposed to have seen. DESTROYED in court.

But his witness statement says he heard the large crash. CONFIRMED in court.

Originally posted by gavron
But his witness statement says he heard the large crash. CONFIRMED in court.

But he was told what he was supposed to have seen, destroyed in court.

Originally posted by REMISNE
But he was told what he was supposed to have seen, destroyed in court.

But he didn't say he SAW anything.

Please pay attention, Roger.

His statement was what he heard, he never said he SAW anything.

Originally posted by gavron
But he didn't say he SAW anything..

Thats right but he did say he was told what he was suppsed to have seen.

Originally posted by REMISNE
Thats right but he did say he was told what he was suppsed to have seen.

No, he wasn't in a position to see anything. He was only able to hear the crash.

Originally posted by gavron
No, he wasn't in a position to see anything. .

No, he stated him and his friend should have seen the plane.

Please read the full statement.

Originally posted by REMISNE

No, he stated him and his friend should have seen the plane.

But he didn't, which was in his statement. That he didn't see the crash.

Silly Roger

Originally posted by gavron
But he didn't, which was in his statement. That he didn't see the crash.

Yes but he stated he should have seen the plane and he was told what the plane was. Which are both in his statment.

Originally posted by REMISNE
Yes but he stated he should have seen the plane and he was told what the plane was. Which are both in his statment.

...you know there is a different between seeing the plane, and "should have seen".

His statement clearly states he did not see the plane.