LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
I don't know why you started another thread about this when the old one was perfectly fine, but since you squirmed away from my post there http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70177&page=8
and ignored the vast majority of it while pretending to respond to a few words of it, I'm going to repeat it here:
Christopher,
You really have to read the report for comprehension. It's not that difficult. If and when you have evidence to support your contentions, please bring it. So far, you have not.
It is a simple reality that people who were on the scene at the time over the course of several hours were in different locations, under different circumstances over the course of those several hours, with differing opportunities to observe, differing vantage points, and their observations can only be based upon what they saw at their particular locations at the particular times that they were there.
Trying to conflate them all into one particular moment in time out of several hours, and trying to conflate them all into one particular location when that wasn't the case, and trying to pretend that one person's view from a particular location *has* to mean what you want it to mean is just silly.
As is the case in any chaotic situation - most of which are much less chaotic than the events of September 11, 2001 - numerous people have different vantage points at different times and their reports will not, ever, align perfectly with each other. This is not because they are untrue but because humans see things from their own perspectives, at different locations and at different vantage points, with varying opportunities to observe, and at different times, so that any attempt to pretend that every account should be the same ignores the realities of time, location, distance, opportunity to observe, etc., and also because people giving accounts of what they saw after a traumatic event do not necessarily use precise language but rather use language that is appropriate to the time and circumstance of their relating their observations.
If you really wish to dissect the various accounts and wish to try to prove that they are inconsistent, the only way to do that is to contact the witnesses whose words you keep trying to interpret your own way and ask them yourself to clarify the things that you have a problem with. Set it all out on a time line with a scaled drawing of the area and be sure to ascertain exactly where each person was at the time of their observations, etc.
You should be able to find the witnesses easily enough. They aren't in hiding. They aren't under any "gag orders". Go and interview them, ask them all the questions that are necessary in your view to get their complete accounts, including times and locations for each of their observations, and then come on back and tell us how you made out.
and ignored the vast majority of it while pretending to respond to a few words of it, I'm going to repeat it here:
Christopher,
You really have to read the report for comprehension. It's not that difficult. If and when you have evidence to support your contentions, please bring it. So far, you have not.
It is a simple reality that people who were on the scene at the time over the course of several hours were in different locations, under different circumstances over the course of those several hours, with differing opportunities to observe, differing vantage points, and their observations can only be based upon what they saw at their particular locations at the particular times that they were there.
Trying to conflate them all into one particular moment in time out of several hours, and trying to conflate them all into one particular location when that wasn't the case, and trying to pretend that one person's view from a particular location *has* to mean what you want it to mean is just silly.
As is the case in any chaotic situation - most of which are much less chaotic than the events of September 11, 2001 - numerous people have different vantage points at different times and their reports will not, ever, align perfectly with each other. This is not because they are untrue but because humans see things from their own perspectives, at different locations and at different vantage points, with varying opportunities to observe, and at different times, so that any attempt to pretend that every account should be the same ignores the realities of time, location, distance, opportunity to observe, etc., and also because people giving accounts of what they saw after a traumatic event do not necessarily use precise language but rather use language that is appropriate to the time and circumstance of their relating their observations.
If you really wish to dissect the various accounts and wish to try to prove that they are inconsistent, the only way to do that is to contact the witnesses whose words you keep trying to interpret your own way and ask them yourself to clarify the things that you have a problem with. Set it all out on a time line with a scaled drawing of the area and be sure to ascertain exactly where each person was at the time of their observations, etc.
You should be able to find the witnesses easily enough. They aren't in hiding. They aren't under any "gag orders". Go and interview them, ask them all the questions that are necessary in your view to get their complete accounts, including times and locations for each of their observations, and then come on back and tell us how you made out.
Last edited:
