More Eyewitness "Evidence"
Here's a rather bizarre clip:
First off, obvious problem beyond whether they "dubbed in" the woman claiming it was not an American Airlines (sic) is that the film appears to be taken from several miles away. Second question is whether the woman has any expertise as a plane spotter?
posted by Pat @ 10:49 AM
25 comments
25 Comments:
Second question is whether the woman has any expertise as a plane spotter?
Oh yeah! We need expert plane spotters to see people (humans) in windows going 500MPH @ the Pentagon, right? LOL!
Nesnyc, no, we only need expert plane spotters at the Pentagon, right?
I'm curious as to how this woman knew an American Airlines flight was supposedly hijacked. She seems to be saying that as events are unfolding, and if memory serves, there were many differing reports at the time regarding what flights were hijacked.
Again.... CT evidence that happens DURING the attacks is taken as gospel.
Why bother having another investigation if we can just cherry-pick what a few misinformed people said between 9am and 11am that day?
I still don't know why millions of people bother to go see the Blue Angels every year, since apparently high speed planes are invisible or something....
I still don't know why millions of people bother to go see the Blue Angels every year, since apparently high speed planes are invisible or something....
That's not the point. The point is MORE THAN ONE "person" that supposedly saw the "plane" hitting the Pentagon saw people through the windows. That's like seeing what color underwear the Blue Angle pilots were wearing in their very visible but fast flying planes.
What difference does it make? Maybe they did see it, the human eye is amazingly accurate? In any case no matter how hard you want to close your eyes and wish for it, it doesn't change the fact that hundreds of people, independent from each other all saw a large commercial jetliner.
Number who saw a cruise missile: Zero.
Number who saw a Global Hawk: Zero.
Number who saw an an A-3 Skywarror. Zero.
Damn incovenient for you, ain't it?
Nesnyc, you do realize this thread has nothing to do with the Pentagon incident, right?
Maybe they did see it, the human eye is amazingly accurate?
Now apply that to "That wasn’t an American Airlines" and this whole post falls to pieces.
Nesnyc, you do realize this thread has nothing to do with the Pentagon incident, right?
Right, it's about perception and your pal there just buried himself.
"Right, it's about perception and your pal there just buried himself. "
No, dumbass, because not every eye is equaly capable. If I have a master sniper claiming to be able to see the name-tag on a guy 300 meters away, I'd be a lot less likely to question it than if it's coming from Stevie Wonder.
As for the question about seing passangers in the plane, it's irrelevant. What all of those witnesses DO report is AN AIRPLANE. Not a missile. Your logic goes something like this:
Witness: I saw those two cars crash. I think the licence plate on the one was ACDB-239.
CT-er: AHA! Actually there was no such licence plate found at the scene! Therefore it wasn't a car crash!
No, dumbass, because not every eye is equaly capable.
Give me a break! So only eyes that support your position are accurate? You just nullified yourself as well. NEXT!!
Give me a break! So only eyes that support your position are accurate? You just nullified yourself as well. NEXT!!
No, numbnuts, because I never claimed that the witnesses who saw passsangers were right. Personaly I think it's horse-shit. But there is a possibility that they may have. Whereas there's zero possibility that your witness could tell that the aircraft she was looking at didn't belong to AA.
The other difference is that wheter or not the pentagon witnesses saw passangers is irrelevant to "the offical story" as you so quaintly refer to it. Whereas the accuracy of your witness is pretty much crucial to your argument. Which says a lot about your standard for facts and evidence.
LOL that's hilarious. What was said is correct - it's United Airlines! Man, the fakery is so lame: as if anyone would say anything like that; that was almost certainly dubbed and came right off a script.
Or this was a woman who had a friend/loved one flying on AA that day and was rambling in distress.
Such iron clad "evidence" we have here.
hahah beyond the guy you see on the screen "The Flash". So I guess he buys into every crazy idea.
Does he forget we can watch video of the planes hitting the towers? One woman's instant reaction isn't as good.
Let's play another game, look at a picture of a cruise missile, and pretend it looks anything like a 767.
man.. good thing i never released that video from the JFK assassination of some guy running away yelling "it wasn't lee harvey oswald!". especially since nobody knew it was him at that point.
has it occurred to anyone else that she may have, in fact, been saying "that was not an american airliner" (or at least, meant that), as if she just believed a foreign attack was taking place?
that is to say, nothing to do with the AIRLINE called "american", but the country of origin...
has it occurred to anyone else that she may have, in fact, been saying "that was not an american airliner" (or at least, meant that), as if she just believed a foreign attack was taking place?
I assumed something somewhat similar. I thought she was in shock and was saying that it couldn't have been Americans or an American plane (her assumption being a plane from elsewhere crashed).
However, it's a theory, just like everything else with 9/11. Fact is, no one really know exactly what happened.
It's not really a theory because theories have evidence backing them. Although it's not like people haven't tried to pass off non-theories as theories before (Intelligent Design being the most famous).
Jackhanyes,
The video's resolution and play quality are so crappy on my computer that I thought it was the 2nd plane.
Right on, CHF. Everyday, perusing Wikipedia and blogs, I see 9/11 conspiracists simultaneously claiming that something happened with 100% certainty and is undeniable, but that nobody really knows the truth and that "it's all speculation."
Yep. On a related note, I signed up for "9/11 TopSites" hoping to get a bigger conspiracist audience for my blog so that they may know the truth, but my site was taken down, presumably because the conspiracists who operate it can't tolerate any opposing viewpoints. I just signed up again.
In fact, the OS is they don't know why it fell.
Eh? What planet are you living on? The term OS is idiotic in the first place because it suggests a "story". There's no story to it, the official reports are simply a report on the research conducted into the 9/11 attacks. If you read them, they'll tell you exactly why the towers fell. That you haen't bothered to go through them, and therefore think that no cause for the structural failiure has been established, is your own damn fault.
You really are in your own little world. Look, I don't even need to quote the reports themselves. The NIST page says the following before giving you the links to the report:
"This report describes how the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires led to the collapse of the towers after terrorists flew jet fuel laden commercial airliners into the buildings"
Yep, it really sounds like they don't know how the buildings collapsed, eh? If you can't be bothered to read the report, at the very least take a look at their site.
Post a Comment
<< Home