24-06-2010, 01:13 PM
(This post was last modified: 24-06-2010, 01:22 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
I suggested he had not actually seen the plane hit. And what did he write to Dawn: "Hi Dawn. I did not see the planes hit, but . . . ". He says he asked people around him, principally children, "saw what happened", but how in the world could he know what they saw?
We are predisposed to make sense of what we are seeing, where what we think we are seeing creates closure for visual, auditor, and other stimuli we otherwise do not understand. When we are dealing with unfamiliar stimuli, we run the risk of making mistakes.
If one of us were to see an explosion in a tall building AFTER having been told that a plane had hit a twin building, where smoke was pouring from a hole in its side, it would be virtually impossible to suppose anything besides another plane had hit the second building.
Check out the first fifteen slides of my Buenos Aires Powerpoint, which can be found on the Scholars home page at http://911scholars.org. Whatever hit the North Tower did not look like a Boeing 767. You can check out the structure of the Twin Towers as well.
I would like to ask Dawn to consider that Elias Davidsson has shown that the government has never proven the hijackers were aboard any of the planes. David Ray Griffin has shown that all the phone calls--ALL OF THEM--were fake. What does that tell her?
Pilots has confirmed that the plane shown in the Hezarkahni video is flying faster than aerodynamically possible. The alleged plane enters the South Tower effortlessly, with no deceleration, no crumbling, no breaking off of tail or wings. No falling bodies, seats, or luggage.
The plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. What does the weight of the evidence suggest: that the children saw a plane hit the building or that the children thought they saw a plane hit the building?
I think Dawn is a very good person and completely sincere, who is doing her best to deal with these issues. We have reviewed the 500 witness reports collated by The New York Times. They were all over the place. There was no consistency to them at all. Virtually incoherent.
And there is something about the relative weight of the evidence. I would like to think that Dawn agrees that events that violate laws of nature--laws of aerodynamics and laws of physics--cannot occur, which means that videos that show them cannot possibly be authentic. Am I right?
We are predisposed to make sense of what we are seeing, where what we think we are seeing creates closure for visual, auditor, and other stimuli we otherwise do not understand. When we are dealing with unfamiliar stimuli, we run the risk of making mistakes.
If one of us were to see an explosion in a tall building AFTER having been told that a plane had hit a twin building, where smoke was pouring from a hole in its side, it would be virtually impossible to suppose anything besides another plane had hit the second building.
Check out the first fifteen slides of my Buenos Aires Powerpoint, which can be found on the Scholars home page at http://911scholars.org. Whatever hit the North Tower did not look like a Boeing 767. You can check out the structure of the Twin Towers as well.
I would like to ask Dawn to consider that Elias Davidsson has shown that the government has never proven the hijackers were aboard any of the planes. David Ray Griffin has shown that all the phone calls--ALL OF THEM--were fake. What does that tell her?
Pilots has confirmed that the plane shown in the Hezarkahni video is flying faster than aerodynamically possible. The alleged plane enters the South Tower effortlessly, with no deceleration, no crumbling, no breaking off of tail or wings. No falling bodies, seats, or luggage.
The plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air. What does the weight of the evidence suggest: that the children saw a plane hit the building or that the children thought they saw a plane hit the building?
I think Dawn is a very good person and completely sincere, who is doing her best to deal with these issues. We have reviewed the 500 witness reports collated by The New York Times. They were all over the place. There was no consistency to them at all. Virtually incoherent.
And there is something about the relative weight of the evidence. I would like to think that Dawn agrees that events that violate laws of nature--laws of aerodynamics and laws of physics--cannot occur, which means that videos that show them cannot possibly be authentic. Am I right?
Dawn Meredith Wrote:I did hear back from my son-in-law's brother, as promised am passing on his comments:
Hi Dawn. I did not see the planes hit, but I stood in a crowded street looking up at a burning hole in the north side of the tower and watching people jump. I asked the people around me what happened. Dozens of them saw it. I lived across the street from an elementary school that is 4 blocks from the site. Several of the children were cryig that a plane hit. They saw it. The guy who worked for me saw it. I didn't see it because I was in my apt, and the windows faced north. I lived it and will never forget it. Anyone who says it didn't happen is exploiting the deaths of thousands of people and trauma of tens of thousands more. To what ends I do not know. I hope that helps. Mike
So, he saw people jumping and knows people who saw plane hit, including the guy who worked for him.
Have not heard back from Caleb Oglesby.
Dawn