| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| NOC Witnesses Can Be Subpoenaed; Why don't Skeptics support an inquiry... | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 25 2008, 02:17 PM (132 Views) | |
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Feb 25 2008, 02:17 PM Post #1 |
|
...based on what they saw? Right now, all the north side witnesses can be subpoenaed and forced to testify and verify what said on video for us. If they will not change their story and are considered to be telling the truth, then 9/11 has been proven to be an inside job. Why not support a congressional inquiry into this matter? Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Feb 25 2008, 02:17 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Feb 26 2008, 12:17 PM Post #2 |
|
bump |
|
|
|
| Bernie big shorts | Feb 26 2008, 12:48 PM Post #3 |
|
Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. I watched a documentary called 'Child of our time' with Dr Robert Winston, people were shown pictures from their childhood and they were asked if they could remember them being taken, but the makers had placed a superimposed image of them as a child on a hot air baloon, they were asked to think hard about the scene and many came back with detailed responses of the day they rode on the hot air baloon, many recalled things their mother said to them before they got on the baloon, one was convinced she had eaten an ice cream before she got on, it was fascinating how fragile the memory is and how much their imagination filled in blanks. I cant find it on youtube, here's a news story link to it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2190699.stm In every road traffic accident that police attend they can be sure that some eye witnesses will be completely mistaken and this is straight after the incident. 15 people will report a red car speeding away from the scene and 3 will report a yellow, 15 will report the car turning right as it sped off and 3 will report it turning left. The police assume that the majority of witnesses are likely to be right but this is no guarantee. They have to gather physical evidence because of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Here's an interesting link about it. http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html If you want to subpoena the NOC witnesses you'll need something more than their testimony, i'm sure they remember the plane flying NOC in the same way the people in the Dr Winston experiment remember flying in the hot air baloon. You need physical evidence to back up the fragility of eye witness testimony. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Feb 26 2008, 01:50 PM Post #4 |
|
Oh yes I know this. What does this have to with our witnesses? They ALL place the plane on the north side. It is corroborated 6-7 times over. These are all published witnesses. According to your articles, that means eyewitnesses are also "unreliable" when it comes to the impact. The problem is that it leaves us with the dubious, admittedly "counter-intuitive" damage and debris. So we have to turn to the eyewitnesses to get the exact details. Of course eyewitnesses are fallible, but their testimony is strengthened the more it is corroborated. The fact is, these witnesses ARE the witnesses at and near the Citgo. They had the best view of the approach. Two of the north side witnesses were facing the plane as it came by and toward them. The witnesses on the highway, cannot and will not debunk the north side approach, because they could not see either approach or do not highlight it at all. I love the goal post moving though it's quite predictable. What physical evidence do suggest we obtain to corroborate the north side? Ahhhh. I get it, this is just another slimy "pseudoskeptic" technique to draw us all back to the same dubious and "IRRECONCILABLE with a 757" damage or "physical evidence" we've been staring at for years. The same evidence that started all the theories and lack of transparency when it came video footage being released that showed what happened that day. He wants to simply rule out eyewitnesses now and act as if the "physical evidence" 'trumps'(their favorite word) these eyewitnesses. That is circular logic. We interviewed the witnesses about how EXACTLY the plane approached the building BECAUSE OF the "physical evidence"!!! The "physical evidence" IS the crime. You want physical evidence that supports the north side? -The photos that show lack of foundation damage. http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=24 -The photos that show the generator trailer/fence damage is irreconcilable with FDR data and 757 wing/engine in a right wing tilt up. http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=6 -The FDR allegedly recovered from the Pentagon is irreconcilable with low and level approach over the lawn. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3752900324142560520&hl=en -The video that shows an object low and level across the lawn that does not cast shadow, that is IRRECONCILABLE with the FDR and descent angle shown the data. http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/pentanimorig-1.gif -The RADES Data shows second to last coordinate as north of the Citgo: http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/107505/ -The radar tracking that Monte Belger/Mineta report place the plane DRA near Great Falls and Rosslyn. http://www.msnbc.com/modules/91102/interviews/mineta.asp -The tape of Colin Scoggins reporting (and the radar tracking showing) the plane 6 miles SE of the white house. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608 -The Fuselage skin debris never had rivets in it. http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mercury2/norivets.jpg All of these things DIRECTLY contradict the impact of AAL77 and prove there was no impact. Therefore they support the north side approach and flyover. Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Feb 26 2008, 01:55 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Bernie big shorts | Feb 26 2008, 02:35 PM Post #5 |
|
They may be mistaken no matter how many times they repeat it or if its published.
Yes.
It may seem counter intuitive to you but not to accident investigaters.
Eyewitnesses cannot provide exact details that is why the police or courts dont use them as a prime source of evidence.
I would agree their testimony would be strengthened if it could be corroborated.
So their testimony cant be strengthened through corrobaration.
They believe the plane came from the NOC but i think they could easily be mistaken. As an unexpected, low flying, high speed 747 roared past them they would be shocked, as they spun round to see where it was headed they could easily misjudge the direction it originally came from, infact i would be surprised if they could accurately state its direction of approach.
This may be true.
Not sure what you mean, you'll have to point this out.
Not sure, if youre investigaters you'll have to find some, in the same way police cant rely on eyewitness testimony and have to find real evidence. This isnt a trick to discount you its what goes on in real investigations because eyewitnesses are notoriously inaccurate.
Not sure what this means but i can assure you its not a 'pseudoskeptic' technique, its what goes on in the real world. If i ever heard of a case of someone being accused, or charged, on the basis of an eyewitness testimony i would oppose it strongly, i'm sure you would too.
But it does, thats what the legal system does, it offers protection because eyewitnesses are very unreliable. Look at that case i linked to where the man who was live on tv was accused of rape because the woman had confused her attacker with the man she had just seen on tv. If physical evidence didnt trump eyewitnesses we would be in deep trouble.
I think there could be alternative explanations for the 'anomolies' you have pointed out. I dont believe it is evidence of a north side approach and flyover. Edited by Bernie big shorts, Feb 26 2008, 02:36 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Feb 26 2008, 03:03 PM Post #6 |
|
There is NOTHING to indicate this. NOTHING. Only your disbelief that this happened. They "may be mistaken". Well which is it? Are they ALL MISTAKEN about the same thing, from the same day, on the same day they were interviewed. Do you realize how idiotic that sounds?
And yet you all use this as proof of an impact. Which would the NOC witnesses be MORE SURE OF, logically speaking of course, the plane was on the north side of the Citgo OR the plane hit the building?
How do you know? I know of former accident investigators who do have problems with it. By the way, "counter-intuitive" isn't my term. It's been impact proponents like Russell Pickering and Integrated Consultants who is cited by the US State Dept on the Pentagon attack. So even the "proponents" accept that it is"counter-intuitive" and...um...are you blind? It IS counter intuitive.
They don't? But they do use them don't they? In fact, haven't convictions been won solely on eyewitness testimony. Sure. Are you and skeptic brigade the final approval on what courts should use? Of course not. Your logic is desperate and reachy.
Well???????? It is strengthened by corroboration and more.
Um it has. Do you realize how flawed your logic is? You just moved the goal posts. When you ask 1 witness something and it is corroborated by another witness, then those two are corroborated by a 3rd, and those 3 are corroborated by a 4th then their testimony has been strengthened by corroboration. We corroborated their accounts.
It doesn't matter what you think. You are wrong.
Um it was supposed to be a 757. How can you tell them how they would be. You weren't there and frankly you are changing their accounts based on an arbitrary, FICTIONAL, opinion based on your own biases. You have no idea how fast the plane was really traveling. And you should have a look at what a plane traveling 4-500 mph looks like: http://www.pentagonresearch.com/eye.html http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2787482791697822411&hl=en (@ 35 seconds I believe that jet is traveling about 460mph) There is NOTHING to suggest that they ALL misjudged the same thing AT THE EXACT SAME TIME and then mistakenly reported EXACT SAME THING 5 yrs later.
It is.
Look up what goal post moving is.
That is a load of shit. Police always, always, always look for eyewitnesses to an event along with the physical evidence at the scene. Eyewitnesses WHEN HEAVILY CORROBORATED are NOT notoriously inaccurate.
Perhaps it's unintentional. But I've provided you with physical evidence.
Apples and rocks bro. We are talking about the physical evidence at the Pentagon. Not a rape case.
I don't even know you and you are probably a good guy. But that response actually physically disgusted me. You don't even know what any of that meant. You just "think" there are alternative explanations for it. You didn't even click the links. Do you realize how weak that is of you. This is what makes you a "pseudoskeptic". You are work from your own personal incredulity. Not logic, reason or science. Let's sum it up, I just gave you links to actual physical evidence that support the north side and flyover and you summarily dismissed with two sentences. You realize I won this debate right? |
|
|
|
| Bernie big shorts | Feb 26 2008, 05:29 PM Post #7 |
|
There is nothing idiotic in stating that they may be mistaken, in fact in this dramatic and extraordinary situation i would be surprised if they got all the details correct.
Not on its own.
One is a detail, one is an event. They could get the flight path wrong much easier than getting the plane hitting the building wrong.
Not on eyewitness testimony alone, it wouldnt even get as far as court because eyewitnesses are so inaccurate.
How can i be wrong? All i'm saying is they could be mistaken! Are you saying its impossible that they could be mistaken?
Apologies my mistake.
I'm not changing their account, i'm just stating that they could be mistaken.
I'm aware what it is but you havent explained why you are accussing me of it.
Police may use eyewinesses as leads only. It is notorious how bad eyewitness testimonies are. There is a famous case of an accident at an air show in 1956, a dozen people died, there were around 100,000 spectators at the show, thousands wrote in with their accounts, only 6 out of thousands got the details right. Study after study shows how wildly inaccurate eyewitness testimony is. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bfhIuaD183I
I have looked at those links many, many times.
If you say so. Edited by Bernie big shorts, Feb 27 2008, 07:01 AM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
3:29 AM Nov 26
