Arus808
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,204
translation: we are too lazy to go to the right people to give us access to the physical evidence that has been available to other bodies of investigations for the last 5 years.
The testimony of Pentagon police officers SGT Lagasse and SGT Brooks.
- Thread starter Lyte Trip
- Start date
translation: we are too lazy to go to the right people to give us access to the physical evidence that has been available to other bodies of investigations for the last 5 years.
Arus808
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,204
I aint no "dude" Lyte. YOu know very well that Im of the female persuasion.
WHICH proves that the DNA found at the pentagon was the DNA of the passengers and those WHO WERE WORKING at the pentagon.
OMG. how many times are you going to repeat this :
its a piece of paper with names on it
mantra?
The DNA evidence has been verified by all those who were tasked to collected them, analyze them and REPORT on them. Those "peices of papers with a list of names on it" are backed by countless hours of testing and comparission. Why haven't you questioned the the lab workers who were tasked to do so? Why haven't you personally talked to those who collected the evidence?
You dont know what a "logical fallacy" is to begin with.
Your 'dancing' on the issue is quite documented.
When someone says that there is DNA evidence, you quickly answer that a piece a of paper with names on it isn't evidence.
You are piece of work Lyte.
A W Smith
Philosopher
What was the chain of custody of the witnesses visual evidence that was described inaccurately on your little video lyte? How do you know this "evidence" wasn't corrupted or decayed over the years? if it was a video you would have had something. What you are claiming as evidence is just flawed inaccurate memories. You have NOTHING!
DNA..........................FLIGHT PATH
Separate unrelated pieces of evidence.
Find me an eyewitness that definitively places the plane on the south side of the citgo station and you will have a point.
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,607
Then all DNA evidence in every court of law is inadmissible? Since the investigators at the scene collect and tag the evidence and then send it to a lab for qualified people to test, you can no longer use DNA evidence because it could be suspect.
They are all first hand accounts filmed on location.
No chain of custody.
They only need to be remotely correct about the approximate placement of the plane and the official story is toast.
Since they all remember the approximate placement of the plane the same it is not logical to suggest that ALL of their memories simultaneously failed so drastically in the exact same way.
In fact that notion is ludicrous and you know it.
I don't know that one.
Unrelated to the plane crash?
Why do you accept only eyewitness testimony as evidence?
NickUK
Critical Thinker
That's the whole point, Lyte, they aren't remotely correct.
Pure Stundie material.
A W Smith
Philosopher
No chain of custody? so you filmed the flight right from their eyeballs 5 1/2 years ago? No corruption of evidence? you are a fool.
Lyte...
You seem to think that the odds are vanishingly small that 4 separate people would independently make the same mistake in remembering a flight path. This tells us you have a flawed understanding of perception, memory and recall. For the two men in your video here, for instance, there are at least two systematic sources of error which would act in like fashion with each man; that is, their testimony cannot be considered independent. (One of the sources of error, you will see, is shared by all your witnesses.)
Human perception is not like videotape. It is subject to systematic biases. One possibility that could have biased both men's recall of where the flight path was, is the position of the sun in the sky. The perceived flight path of a plane can be systematically different depending on the anchoring effect of the sun. It may not be a big effect (the size of the effect is an empirical question, though), but if you interviewed the men while the sun was in a different position in the sky than it was on the morning of 9/11, you have introduced a systematic bias into their testimony. (You may easily conclude from the testimony of your witnesses that something like this has happened; one man is forced to relocate the cab and the light poles to fit his recollection. You are forced to ignore this portion of his testimony in order to claim 100% confidence in his story.)
More troubling, though, is another systematic source of bias, one that has been examined experimentally for decades. That source, of course, is the bias of the interviewer/cameraman. Since you are not on camera, it is impossible to evaluate your body language; since we only have the view you give us, we cannot tell what you might have emphasized or minimized when you were at the sites with your witnesses. Such a bias need not be intentional on your part; we are often ignorant of the effects we have on others in this sort of situation. This bias is the whole reason we cherish double-blind experimental procedures; they guard us against our own bias. Your eyewitnesses would be much more credible if they had been interviewed by a third party, one who was ignorant of your flyover theory.
You want us to be impressed by the improbability of ALL (erm...for most of your claims, the proper word is BOTH) the eyewitnesses making the same mistake? Learn something about eyewitness testimony first.
You seem to think that the odds are vanishingly small that 4 separate people would independently make the same mistake in remembering a flight path. This tells us you have a flawed understanding of perception, memory and recall. For the two men in your video here, for instance, there are at least two systematic sources of error which would act in like fashion with each man; that is, their testimony cannot be considered independent. (One of the sources of error, you will see, is shared by all your witnesses.)
Human perception is not like videotape. It is subject to systematic biases. One possibility that could have biased both men's recall of where the flight path was, is the position of the sun in the sky. The perceived flight path of a plane can be systematically different depending on the anchoring effect of the sun. It may not be a big effect (the size of the effect is an empirical question, though), but if you interviewed the men while the sun was in a different position in the sky than it was on the morning of 9/11, you have introduced a systematic bias into their testimony. (You may easily conclude from the testimony of your witnesses that something like this has happened; one man is forced to relocate the cab and the light poles to fit his recollection. You are forced to ignore this portion of his testimony in order to claim 100% confidence in his story.)
More troubling, though, is another systematic source of bias, one that has been examined experimentally for decades. That source, of course, is the bias of the interviewer/cameraman. Since you are not on camera, it is impossible to evaluate your body language; since we only have the view you give us, we cannot tell what you might have emphasized or minimized when you were at the sites with your witnesses. Such a bias need not be intentional on your part; we are often ignorant of the effects we have on others in this sort of situation. This bias is the whole reason we cherish double-blind experimental procedures; they guard us against our own bias. Your eyewitnesses would be much more credible if they had been interviewed by a third party, one who was ignorant of your flyover theory.
You want us to be impressed by the improbability of ALL (erm...for most of your claims, the proper word is BOTH) the eyewitnesses making the same mistake? Learn something about eyewitness testimony first.
Wartrac
Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2007
- Messages
- 165
So they are incorrect about the impact but correct about the flight path. Can you provide evidence that it's not the other way around? I mean other than just picking one to fit your "theroy".
Their testimony goes against ALL the physical evidence but it HAS to be correct according to you....but yet they are totally wrong regarding the impact........
Ah yes, the flyover was blocked by the fireball......
Trust me I had no clue. To me you are all just one big Gravy. So pardon me Ma'am.
Not if the chain of command was compromised.
Huh? I don't recall saying this even once. Can you please quote where I've used those words? What are you even talking about?
How are any of us supposed to know where the chain of custody has been compromised? Bottom line if the citgo witnesses are remotely correct......it has been compromised.
Of course I do and using the DNA issue to discount the citgo witnesses is most certainly a perfect example of a logical fallacy. In fact it's worse than that. It's a circular logical fallacy! Want to know why?
If the citgo witnesses are even approximately correct in their placement of the plane it fully implicates the people who have control of the chain of command of the DNA evidence as the perpetrators of the crime.
That would be like accepting the boat dock receipt from Scott Peterson as proof that he was out of town when Lacy was killed.
You must see the conflict here.
Again....I have no idea what you are talking about. You have repeated this claim twice in one post and I don't believe I have ever once made such a comment.
Please quote me or retract your claim.
It's a fact.
There is zero room for error in the physical damage flight path.
Due to the light poles the plane could only have been in one place which happens to be OPPOSITE what all the witnesses saw.
If the plane was anywhere near where they all place it there is no way it hit the poles and damaged the building.
That is not logical.
They could not all be so ridiculously mistaken in the exact same way.
It's a stretch to suggest that ANY of them could make a mistake so drastic.....but all of them?
In the exact same way???
This is a statistically impossible scenario.
The notion is absurd.
That might be a legitimate point if they didn't all corroborate each other.
When people make a mistake so drastically different from reality you can pretty much bet that it will be an isolated account.
The fact that ALL of them said the same thing pretty much rules that out as a legitimate possibility.
You guys are reaching as far as you can to dismiss this critical testimony.
If you are talking about the fact that they all believed the plane impacted the building you are using the same circular logical fallacy to dismiss their placement of the plane that all you guys have been using. This makes no sense for a critical thinker.
You must be kidding? Did you not listen to the extreme detail they gave in their accounts? They saw the plane! They know the area because they work there every day and they are cops. They were not the least bit ambiguous or confused. You are in denial.
Once again a logical fallacy. To him the location of the cab would be INCONSEQUENTIAL to the placement of the plane because.....
1. He did not see the light poles get hit or the cab at all until afterwards or even just from reading reports and looking at pictures like the rest of us.
2. The big ass plane was extremely huge, obvious, historical, significant, incredible, mind blowing, outrageous, memorable beyond belief, and was the entire focus of the event.
3. The cab was by comparison at the time an insignificant irrelevant piece of dust.
Which do you REALLY believe he would remember the placement of more accurately?
Be honest.
Oh spare me. These are cops. This was an historical event. The only detail that is important is which side of the damn station the plane was on. There is NO WAY that they all said north because of ME and you know it.
We did NOT believe in a flyover theory before this investigation. The theory is strictly a result of the investigation and we care not if you choose to subscribe to it. If you don't though you better come up with a better explanation for what happened to the plane after it passed on the north side of the gas station.
This is so devoid of substance and casually dismissive of the facts that I am not inclined to waste my time coming up with a response.