Thank God we're not Russia

"gatt" wrote in message

We're not talking about what was proven. THE ISSUE IS 'EVIDENCE'.
MULTIPLE
PEOPLE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER REPORTING AN EXPLOSION IS NOT PROOF, BUT
IT'S SURE AS HELL A GOOD PIECE OF EVIDENCE IF AN EYEWITNESS SAYS THEY SAW
SOMETHING HAPPEN.

gatt....
1. There's no need to shout.
2. The word 'evidence', while by definition not absolutely denoting proof,
does, to most people and in the common vernacular, strongly imply hard fact.
This may account for your apparent semantic discomfort.
3. If you've been around aviation and paying attention for more than a
couple of weeks, you know that a) most eyewitnesses are worthless, and b)
investigators rarely if ever make hard statements until facts are
established.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
gatt....
1. There's no need to shout.

AAAUUUGGHH!! I'M FRIGGIN' CRAZY! STAY BACK! ;

2. The word 'evidence', while by definition not absolutely denoting
proof,
does, to most people and in the common vernacular, strongly imply hard
fact

Yep. When a bunch of people independently claim to have heard explosions,
that's evidence. And that's all we're talking about. Not hard fact.

3. If you've been around aviation and paying attention for more than a
couple of weeks, you know that a) most eyewitnesses are worthless,

I disgree. Eyewitnesses are exactly how each and every one of us understands
9/11. Was your viewing of the planes crashing into the WTCs "worthless"?
Unless you saw it happen yourself (in which case your opinion would be
"worthless") the imagery you think of when you think of the WTC attacks is
based on eyewitnesses.

investigators rarely if ever make hard statements until facts are
established.

It's not a hard statement to say that witnesses reported explosions.
Regardless of whether the explosions were fact, the multiple accounts of it
are evidence, and we're talking about evidence here, not proof or fact.

-c

gatt wrote:


I disgree. Eyewitnesses are exactly how each and every one of us
understands
9/11. Was your viewing of the planes crashing into the WTCs "worthless"?
Unless you saw it happen yourself (in which case your opinion would be
"worthless") the imagery you think of when you think of the WTC attacks is
based on eyewitnesses.

If it were only witnesses that reported those attacks, we'd not believe in
the attacks. Think this through for a moment, and you'll see the
reasoning. Consider if there were no physical evidence...

It's the same as several witnesses reporting a crash in the Hudson a while
back. The witnesses all saw pretty much the same thing, and there was no
"connection" between the witnesses.

Yet they were all wrong. It was a flight checking on migratory birds, or
some such thing, and they'd flown rather low past the GW bridge. No crash.
No problem at all, in fact.

No evidence of problem either; just some witnesses.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message

It's the same as several witnesses reporting a crash in the Hudson a while
back. The witnesses all saw pretty much the same thing, and there was no
"connection" between the witnesses.
.... No evidence of problem either; just some witnesses.

Well, in that case there's no point in believing the Russian jets crashed at
all. The investigation results aren't complete so at the notion that the
airplanes crashed is all hypothetical and speculative.

I mean, how do we know it just wasn't two flocks of birds?
No..wait...swamp gas. Meteorites! Yeah, that's it. Can't speculate though
until the Russian government -- the same folks that brought you the Kursk
submarine fiasco, which might just a rumor too as far as we should be
concerned since we only heard about it on the media -- says otherwise.

So two UFOs were seen crashing in Russia this week and two jetliners are
missing. Better wait until the investigation results to confirm that it
wasn't migratory birds.

-c

"gatt" wrote in message

...there's no point in believing the Russian jets crashed at
all... the notion that the
airplanes crashed is all hypothetical and speculative.

...two flocks of birds?....swamp gas. Meteorites! Yeah, that's it.
Can't
speculate though
until the Russian government -- the same folks that brought you the Kursk
submarine fiasco, which might just a rumor too as far as we should be
concerned since we only heard about it on the media -- says otherwise.

Better wait until the investigation results to confirm that it
wasn't migratory birds.

You guys are right. I'm sorry. Yaaaaaay Russia! The paragon of freedom
of
information and public disclosure. Yaaaaaaaaaay Russia!

Don't quit your day job.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message

You guys are right. I'm sorry. Yaaaaaay Russia! The paragon of freedom
of information and public disclosure. Yaaaaaaaaaay Russia!

Don't quit your day job.

Not sure what my day job has to do anything, but, tell me which one,
Comrade? Writing? Computers and newtorking? Performing music or building
battle robots for television and video games? What are you presuming my day
job to be, anyhow?

Oh, and look: The Russian officials finally figured out that that there
were explosions and terrorism. Golly, Wally, who'da thunk? The experts
finally figured out what the media knew immediately.

-c

gatt wrote:

Oh, and look: The Russian officials finally figured out that that there
were explosions and terrorism. Golly, Wally, who'da thunk? The experts
finally figured out what the media knew immediately.


The media did not _know_ a damn thing beyond the fact that two planes
crashed under highly suspicious circumstances, period! Hell, even the
people who planted the bombs didn't _know_ that they had brought the
planes down until there was corraborative evidence - the planes could
have crashed from a coincidental cause unrelated to their activities.
They certainly would have a good reason to _expect_ that their actions
were responsible, but this is not the same thing as _knowing_ that
they did.

Your lack of critical analysis, coupled with your unwillingness to
even attempt to understand the point others are making about your
pronouncements, have me fervently hoping that you are not now, have
never been, and never will be associated with any forensic activity
of any kind. Having already determined for yourself what consitutes
'truth', you are only too likely to make sure your investigation
supports the conclusion you've already reached.

Rich Lemert

John Gaquin wrote:

gatt....
1.
....

And
4. The investigators are Russians. Who knows what they originally said
in Russian and how accurately it was translated.

Stefan