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 SphinxMontreal
However, it is quite perplexing (to say the least) that you (and several of your other debunker buddies) have this overwhelming desire to counter "highly outlandish claims".
Originally posted by nickspm
Here is the information that relates to 9/11 about Israelis arrested with vans full of explosives.
The information is all extremely well documented
Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"I'm being paid to come to a site in which people claim highly outlandish claims to post fake reasonable arguments?"
Don't really care what you are paid to do. However, it is quite perplexing (to say the least) that you (and several of your other debunker buddies) have this overwhelming desire to counter "highly outlandish claims". If these claims are so outlandish, do they really need a response from someone who is intelligent enough to eat up every piece of garbage the Government and the media throw their way?
Originally posted by dereks
Originally posted by nickspm
Here is the information that relates to 9/11 about Israelis arrested with vans full of explosives.
The information is all extremely well documented
Except there were many claims made that day about bombs going off that were not true, just like the stories about the Israeli's and trucks with explosives - none of them turned out to be true.
Originally posted by jfj123
Just to play devils advocate...Could those explosions be related to flamable substances that caught fire from the original impact fires?
That's a question for the independent inquiry to consider.....
Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by JohnJasper
That's a question for the independent inquiry to consider.....
And exactly how do you go about "considering" that question - even with a so called "independent inquiry"? You're independent, correct? So what do you think? Is there anyway to satisfy you as to what the cause of the explosive sounds that were heard ten years ago?
Originally posted by JohnJasper
I would use a novel approach that didn't occur to the 9/11 Commission. I would listen to the testimony of eye-witnesses and question them to gather as much detail as possible to determine what happened on the day and when.
Any chance that I could get picked to head the inquiry?
Originally posted by Lord Jules
how could they be filming this if they had no prior knowledge?
Originally posted by Lord Jules
reply to post by jfj123
fortunately, most of the eye witness testimony is recorded.
The alternative media like loose change already investigated it, so there's really nothing else except a witch hunt which won't happen and will just make you look crazy.
Originally posted by plube
reply to post by jfj123
well then i guess all the eyewitnesses that did see the planes hit the towers does not count either then in that case...
what an absolutely ridiculous thing to say...
In a 2005 article in the journal Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (Vol. 12, No. 1, pages 43-65), Loftus examined his distance-as-filtering hypothesis that, as a face moves further away, its details become progressively courser and more difficult to recognize.
Comparing the relationship between losses in clarity due to size or blurriness allowed Loftus to develop a formula to approximate the amount of detail people who have 20/20 vision lose at a range of distances in normal daytime light.
"We know enough about the visual system that we now can create a visual depiction of what is lost at any given distance," Loftus says. "When an image is far away, the image shrinks in size on the retina and, as a result, loses details."
The formula, Loftus says, allows expert witnesses-like himself-to use a specific mathematical relationship between image quality and distance to visually simulate the conditions under which an eyewitness observed a crime.
Iowa State University experimental social psychologist Gary Wells, PhD, a member of a 1999 U.S. Department of Justice panel that published the first-ever national guidelines on gathering eyewitness testimony, says Loftus's model suggests that crime investigators need to think about eyewitness evidence in the same way that they think about trace evidence.
"Like trace evidence, eyewitness evidence can be contaminated, lost, destroyed or otherwise made to produce results that can lead to an incorrect reconstruction of the crime," he says.
But it is not just the thorny issue of recognizing a face that confuses witnesses. Witnesses' recollection of every aspect of an incident can be contaminated by what they hear from other people.
Forensic psychologist Dr Fiona Gabbert has been working at Aberdeen University with Professor Amina Memon on the distortions in eyewitness recollection.
"Memories are very vulnerable to error. If you witness a crime and then read a local news report everything can be combined in your memory at a later date," she said.
"It can be hard to distinguish between what you saw, and another source of information.
"If there are two people witnessing a crime it is very likely that you are going to ask the person next to you or say 'I can't believe what just happened'."
In studies at the university, subjects were shown very slightly different versions of the same event, such as a crime filmed from different angles.
The subjects are allowed to talk and then a statement is taken as if they are talking to the police.
Dr Gabbert said 70% of participants reported witnessing at least one thing they could not possibly have seen themselves.
Even when given a "source monitoring test", where the participants are asked to highlight what they saw and what might have come from other sources, 50% will report an item from their discussions with other people as their own.
"It is a true memory error - you are really thinking that you have seen it. It is horrifically scary," Dr Gabbert continued.
"There are criminal cases where witnesses identified the same innocent person. It goes to show your memory is so easily influenced. You discuss your memories with people every single day."
And even without the influence of other people, retaining an accurate recollection of a complex event is not easy.
Mr Roberts said stress was a major factor in distorted testimony.
"When you see a very violent episode you are likely to be under great stress that adversely affects your ability to recall events accurately.
"There is also a well-known effect called 'weapon focus'. If you are watching an event where someone is brandishing a gun you don't recall as much information - psychologists think naturally your focus is on the weapon."
Psychologists Jason Chan of Iowa State University, Ayanna Thomas from Tufts University and John Bulevich from Rhode Island College wanted to see how providing false information following a recall test would affect volunteers’ memories of an event that they witnessed.
A group of volunteers watched the first episode of “24″ and then either took an immediate recall test about the show or played a game. Next, all of the subjects were told false information about the episode they had seen and then took a final memory test about the show, said an Iowa State release.
The results were surprising. The researchers found that the volunteers who took the test immediately after watching the show were almost twice as likely to recall false information compared to the volunteers who played the game following the episode.
The results were published in the January issue of Psychological Science.
then when people go to court the eyewitnessses accounts dont mean a thing and the prisons are full of people that are in jail cause of eyewitness testimony....how silly does that statement sound now....