'I Know What I Saw...'

Boston Herald via Rense.com ^ | 11/13/01 | Peter Gelzinis

[hinckley buzzard]

Eye-witness testimony, especially with respect to a sudden unusual event such as this, is notoriously unreliable.

It has nothing to do with defense lawyers, or lying witnesses. It is just a fact that people are typically poor observors, and also have a hard time in retrospect, differentiating between a remembered perception and a created one.

You can like it or you don't have to. But that's the empirical truth, and reality doesn't actually give a sh*t what you prefer. Sorry.

[codder too]

Just went to the Google search you posted for Liquid metal embrittlement agent and note that 1-10 of "666" results came up. Hummmmm!!

[Map Kernow]

You can like it or you don't have to. But that's the empirical truth, and reality doesn't actually give a sh*t what you prefer. Sorry.

And I don't give a sh*t about your theories of reality. Eyewitness testimony cannot be totally or even partially discounted a priori because of some bogus general "study" you allude to (got a cite?). It has been and will continue to be essential evidence in any civil or criminal investigation, whether you like it or not.

[smorgle]

Hey, Red.

The US federal government long ago learned to lie and cover up and fabricate.

That they did. Still I think there's a lot of stuff going on here at once, not just sheeple-ness. Here's the breakdown as I see it:

people who will believe in a conspiracy on principle

people who really are asleep to the government's manipulations and deceits, real and potential

people who are awake but tired of knee-jerk conspiracists

people who are awake but for whatever reason lean toward 'accident'/don't suspect the government of covering up in this particular case

people who are awake but believe the government, by allowing for both accident and sabotage (not saying it's sabotage but not grounding Airbuses either), is acting to protect the aviation industry/economy/political considerations/international relations

people who are awake and willing to consider all reasonable possibilities without preference for accident or sabotage but eventually want an answer one way or the other

I am awake (I think) but don't chalk every strange thing up to government lies. Sometimes they're just dumb as rocks. For instance they were saying at first that maybe an engine knocked the tail off--this when it was already known the tail was back in the water while both engines were in Rockaway. What genius came up with that one?

Overall I think the government is lying to us about a lot of stuff, and a lot of people are asleep to that, but it's too soon to give up on this particular case.

[TankerKC]

But the cosmotologist down the street thinks it was metal fatigue due to improperly cycled annealing.

Too funny!

[AfghanAirShow]

"I think they're groping for a "mechanical failure" explanation, and fighting a "terrorist" explanation. It's the "path of least resistance" for them. I'm not hoping for a "terrorist scenario," just getting the feeling the government is trying to wish it away."

It's certainly understandable that the govt. and the airlines don't want to jump to the conclusion that this was a terrorist act. First of all, there's no evidence yet that points that way, and it would be irresponsible to say it was likely a terrorist act if the facts don't support that. Secondly, it would be a tremendous embarrassment and PR disaster for the govt. and the airlines if it were to be ruled an act of terrorism -- they would have a lot to answer for if such a thing could happen after the supposed improvements in security. Third, the economic impact on the airlines would be horrendous if people lose faith (any more than they already have) in the ability of the airlines to secure the aircraft against acts of terrorism.

We don't yet know what happened, but a conclusion that the crash was the result of terrorist activity is one that will be reached very reluctantly indeed.

[BunnySlippers]

What's the appeal of rense.com? It's a aliens, UFO and Big Foot site.

[Z-28]

"First I heard a big explosion. Then I saw flames come out from behind the plane. And then a whole wing with the engine fell off." - Antonio Villela, a construction worker, eyewitness to American Airlines Flight 587 disaster, New York City, 12 November 2001, killing approximately 269 people (including those still miossing on the ground), and making this crash the 2nd worse aviation disaster in U.S. history.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGATP04RYTC.html

[spycatcher]

There's lots of detailed info available for the reading online, including first hand testimony that contradicts info in your link so I have no need to rebut anything in detail. But let me suggest, whoever made that page should edit it while not jazzed up on caffeine. It's an unreadable mess and doesn't further any argument you may be trying to make. While they're at it they might add the other eyewitness testimony that's left out.

The people who saw the missile before any explosion are the only ones who really know what happened before the first explosion. People who didn't see a missile or saw other streaks of light are being honest, but the're *later* witnesses to the complete chain of events.

"Clear thinking makes for clear websites"

[smorgle]

I skip the sensational stuff and scan about once a week for interesting or valuable items I probably wouldn't see otherwise, like this photo of a jet breaking the sound barrier:

The article is here.

Articles about the World Press Photo 2000 contest are on the web, if you want to see them. Sorry I couldn't post a link - Netscape is really balking. Anyway, take a look sometime in the center (articles) section -you'd be amazed.

[smorgle]

On 9/11 reporters got statements of people who had just run from the collapsing towers. Many were weeping and distraught, in shock, but they knew what they'd seen.

[Silvertip]

And had the CIA concoct a cartoon, and then a corrected cartoon which the lamestream media nursed down the waiting sheeple's throats.

Homer say spontaneous center fuel tank explosion. MMMMmmm good.

[BunnySlippers]

Thanks, I will look around. When I see Big Foot standing in a swamp gazing at a hovering alien spacecraft I usually don't linger. *grin*

[smorgle]

LOL! You were right to ask, though.

[Asmodeus]

The translation of your postings is that you don't know the facts personally but other conspiracy theorists do and you believe they are reliable although you don't recall who they are and accordingly can't provide their names or website URLs.

[spycatcher]

Nice try on the trolling. Actually the translation is I don't feel like bothering when you're so locked in to your TWA800 homepage.

If you know what is happening now with air travel now, you're well aware of the motive (for a lying leader like Clinton) in bringing in the CIA, issuing emergency executive orders, arresting whistleblowers etc as he did. It's devastating to the economy if people don't feel safe flying out of NYC. The eyewitnesses meanwhile have to go against the grain for the sake of truth. In this case I'm confident we'll get the real truth since Bush isn't afraid of having a tough job with terrorists or the economy.

Funny how no one is constructing websites or videos trying to "clarify" how there was never a second plane to hit the Trade Towers. Why? Because when we're all eyewitnesses we can't be lied to or told it never happened. So don't dismiss your fellow average Americans so lightly in favor of "expert analysis."

[185JHP]

Eyewitness testimony evidence is the only evidence that isn't circumstantial evidence.

[PRND21]

the little devious genius kid

Horowitz, you gubermint lackey.

[Verax]

Man...

Who reads this paper...what a bunch of garbage.

What truths support the contention that it couldn't have been mechanical? Couldn't the explosion have been the result of mechanical failure(s)?