Thank God we're not Russia

"Rich Lemert" wrote in message
link.net...

Perhaps you can clue us in as to how you "know" that they exploded,

Well, Rich, they've got witnesses on television networks worldwide
describing the explosions. The point of contention here is that the
officials had not yet found "evidence" of terrorism or explosion. Well,
when witnesses all over the place are describing explosions independently of
each other, that's called evidence.

Either that, or the value of multiple human eye witnesses in Russia (and
this forum, apparently) means nothing.

You get it yet? I didn't say anything about proof or what people "know."
The point is about evidence.
-c

"Rich Lemert" wrote in message news:h3eXc.13049

Evidence of what? All I see here, at most, is that there are
indications of an explosion. I don't see anything here that indicates
those explosions have to be tied to terrorists.

I did not assert that the explosions were tied to terrorists. I asserted
that they were full of crap saying that they had not yet found evidence of
explosions, when people all over the vicinity of at least one of them
reported hearing the explosion.


-c

"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message news:8wjXc.13177

but witnesses on the ground reported hearing a series of
explosions." http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040825/D84M9S800.html

Every single aviation accident since the Wright Bros. has had wintesses on
the ground who provide enormously inaccurate accounts of what they saw and
heard.

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.

Yeesh.


-c

"Rich Lemert" wrote in message news:URdXc.13037$

The facts so far - two planes have crashed in Russia at almost exactly
the same time. That's it.

....And one dialed in a distress code. And witnesses have reported hearing
explosions.
THAT'S it.

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

Would you have been happier if officials had said they had not yet
found _independent_ _physical_ evidence of terrorism or an explosion?

Yep.

I agree that the two crashes are very suspicious. However, believing
that they were caused by terrorists - based solely on the timing - is
far from proving that terrorists were the cause.

Now you're asserting that I "believe they were caused by terrorists." I
merely asserted that there was in fact evidence--didn't say proof; think it
through with me here--of terrorism and explosions.

-c

"Ace Pilot" wrote in message

Aren't you a journalist, gatt?

Where's my rec.aviation.piloting paycheck?

where the reporter reports the facts instead of jumping to conclusions and
actually gives
investigators the time needed to investigate all the possibilities.

The facts are witnesses reported explosions and the Russian officials say
there's no evidence of explosions.

And, again, I say: Thank God we're not in Russia. Let me amend this: Go
live there if you want, and have a ball. Thank God I'M not in Russia.

-c

"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.

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:11:40 GMT, James Robinson
wrote:

I think something might be lost in translation. They have simply stated
that they hadn't yet found anything at the crash scenes that clearly
pointed to a terrorist attack.

An additional data point: to date, no terrorist organization has
claimed responsibility for the crashes. It would be extremely unusual
for a terrorist group to have managed to bring about this very
difficult feat of downing two airliners nearly simultaneously, and not
claim to have done so. After all, publicity is extremely important to
their existance. People must know about them for them to cause
terror.

Corky Scott

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Rich Lemert" wrote in message
link.net...

Perhaps you can clue us in as to how you "know" that they exploded,

Well, Rich, they've got witnesses on television networks worldwide
describing the explosions. The point of contention here is that the
officials had not yet found "evidence" of terrorism or explosion. Well,
when witnesses all over the place are describing explosions independently
of
each other, that's called evidence.


That must have been a heck of an explosion if it was seen by witnesses on
television networks worldwide!

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

"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