-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Witchcraft trial logic Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 16:13:21 +1100 From: Gerard Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mark Bilk writes. [[And it's natural that many witnesses would have misidentified the aircraft that hit WTC2, or not seen it at all. From the length of a 767-200, and its movement in the various videos, I measure its speed at about 570 mph. Unless they were looking in the right direction, and were paying attention, it was difficult to correctly perceive, remember, and evaluate an object going that fast within the few seconds that it was visible. ]] Ah - not so bullish on the "thousands of witnesses " claim any more, Mark ? The *lack * of witnesses to a large jet is now considered to be evidence in favour of it. This kind of reasoning was very popular during the witchcraft trials. If you have lots of witnesses to the witchcraft, that speaks for itself. If there aren't any witnesses , that proves that you're a witch because everyone is scared to testify. Tell me Mark, since witness evidence supporting a large jet would be considered as evidence for a large jet, and since witness evidence contradicting a large jet is also seen as evidence for a large jet - then , just hypothetically, is there any conceivable situation you can imagine where witness evidence might support the idea of it not being a large jet ? -----Original Message----- From: Rosalee Grable [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 9 March 2006 3:07 PM To: Gerard Holmgren Subject: [Fwd: [planehuggers] Re: Morgan Reynolds undercuts his own credibility -- subscribes to "no WTC planes" thesis] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [planehuggers] Re: Morgan Reynolds undercuts his own credibility -- subscribes to "no WTC planes" thesis Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 19:46:41 -0800 From: Mark S Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Organization: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 05:13:31PM -0800, Nico Haupt wrote: >Mark Bilk, thanks for unsubscribing me at "hardevidence", >immediately after the release of my article. > That makes it easier to respond here only. Yii, I hadn't meant to! Sorry! I was adding a couple of people and must have hit the wrong button. You're back on. >Tell me, where the flaws in my article are, and i will respond. > >http://www.911closeup.com/nico/911chron_timeline_nico.html The principal flaw is thinking that the contradictory reports broadcast by CNN that day (as well as other networks -- I saw them too) were a deception scheme rather than simply the result of inadequate and confused information along with the urge to present it to the public as quickly as possible. And it's natural that many witnesses would have misidentified the aircraft that hit WTC2, or not seen it at all. From the length of a 767-200, and its movement in the various videos, I measure its speed at about 570 mph. Unless they were looking in the right direction, and were paying attention, it was difficult to correctly perceive, remember, and evaluate an object going that fast within the few seconds that it was visible. Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
