Jesus and the Pentagon Flyover

[911oz]

From Wiki "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]"

Now to prove that hypothesis is a whole different matter...but I'm not sure that a witness based theory even qualifies as scientific? That would make Jesus's resurection a fact also?

I think that there is a case to say that these guys have used an empirical scientific approach, using the witnesses' memories as their data source.

That does not mean they are correct. Witnesses often make mistakes. However, they have used multiple witnesses and followed a rigorous procedure in the way they questioned them. That gives their approach more credibility in my mind.

So is it a fact Hereward? Is it proven? Do you think CIT should say it's a proven fact?

No, I don't think that is a smart thing to say, but I can understandthat in their minds it is proven.

I would like to see an independent verification of the key witnesses who assert that they saw the plane pass to the north of the Citgo Gas station.

These testimonies are important and need to be investigated in my opinion.

cheers

[John Bursill]

Ok thanks for the clear response!

I also agree that Craig and Aldo did a good job of questioning the witnesses!

Regards John

[Craig Ranke CIT]

From Wiki "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]"

Precisely.

That is exactly what we have done while utilizing the society accepted way to validate eyewitness accounts: independent corroboration.

After being told by the first witness that the plane was north of the gas station we tested this hypothesis over and and over and over 13 times with the same results.

The astronomical level of validation we have is way beyond what is typically necessary for most claims in a court of law.

But especially for a simple right or left claim such as this regarding such a ridiculously conspicuous object and significant event.

Now to prove that hypothesis is a whole different matter...but I'm not sure that a witness based theory even qualifies as scientific? That would make Jesus's resurection a fact also?

Wow.

Are you really call this an analogy?

Eyewitnesses are a MAJOR part of all criminal cases. But they are particularly important regarding the Pentagon attack since they are virtually the ONLY source of independent evidence within the context of the crime we are investigating where the suspect had complete control of the crime scene.

You really aren't making sense John.

Dose one witness that saw a flyover of "an" aircraft (not confirmed to be 77) and 12 that did not prove the flyover theory?

What? That's not what I claim as proof!

The evidence for a north side approach is proof.

A scientist would require evidence of greater strength to dismiss what we have provided, eg: at least 4 witnesses who were at or right next to the gas station's property who definitively place the plane on the south side just as emphatically as Lagasse, Brooks, and Turcios place it on the north side.

You have presented none because none exist.

Does the plentiful evidence of a large jet hitting the Pentagon prove the flyover?

What evidence? You have presented none.

Does the many other witness supporting the official version prove the flyover?

What witnesses?

You have presented none.

The proof we present is regarding where the plane flew in relation to the gas station. If you can not provide evidence to the contrary (and you can't because none exists) then you have no basis with which to dismiss the incredible amount of evidence that a north side approach occurred.

Does CIT (Craig and Aldo) telling us it's proved, prove it?

We didn't tell you anything. The north side approach is not our theory.

It is what the witnesses all told us.

We merely reported it.

Why do you refuse to believe the witnesses who were really there and independently corroborate each other?

Why does it bother you so much that THEY prove 9/11 was an inside job?

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally Posted by 911oz

No, I don't think that is a smart thing to say, but I can understandthat in their minds it is proven.

Do you think that the controlled demolition theory has been proven?

Do you also think it is not smart to say that it has been proven even if it you believe this in your mind?

I would like to see an independent verification of the key witnesses who assert that they saw the plane pass to the north of the Citgo Gas station.

These testimonies are important and need to be investigated in my opinion.

cheers

Investigate the testimony?

Huh?

That is what we have done and video recorded for you!

If the 13 witnesses aren't enough for you how many would it take to convince you that the plane flew north of the citgo?

What kind of "investigation" of these testimonies would you accept? Conducted by whom?

And have you put the same level of scrutiny on the nano-thermite evidence or do you accept that as solid proof?

[John Bursill]

Whatever Craig....

See ya round....

Regards John

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally Posted by John Bursill

Whatever Craig....

See ya round....

Regards John

First "ouch" and now "whatever"?

Is this high school?

No wonder you've refused to accept my debate challenge!

What's great is that you have already admitted that a north side approach proves a flyover before I joined the forum in this post:

Yes ok we agreee Kos that if the plane didn't hit the poles it didn't hit the Pentagon!

-John Bursill

Sorry to see you are so angry that we have uncovered evidence exposing the deception simply because it's not the way that you want it to be exposed.

You're going to be hard-pressed to find many people who view National Security Alert and aren't willing to admit that we provide enough evidence that the plane did not hit the light poles.

Thanks for the endorsement!

[John Bursill]

Hey Craig I know you do this shit all day every day...good on you!

NOW WAKE UP FROM YOUR YOUR FRICKEN DELUSIONS AND UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THAT YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT!

You never conceed a point and you spam like a mofo all day long and you never understand anyone eleses opinion or understanding of the issues.

For eg you ask me to demonstate that there is evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon???? Are you for real....don't you look at all the evidence people have put before you? Do they have to spend their whole fricken lives proving shit to you....why so you can ignore them? Who the fuck do you think you are?

Your case is not courtable and it aint proven, that's the point!

I will debate you on this issue on live radio with no edits after the tour we are running is over.

How you can turn your good research into the mess...I have no idea?

Ego and being determined to piss everyone off that does not agree with you seems to be your desire...well you've achieved it with me, well done.

Hereward will set a date and we will have this out in the public on the record probably in December.

John

PS - See if you can develop some understanding in the meantime of why your seen by so many in this movement as a complete asshole, maybe we can find a way to work together? No that's right it's the two man Citizens investigation team that is important...PLEASE...reconsider your method