Ron Wieck's RMS Titanic Witness Thread, Split from R. Mackey "Nothing to Debate" thread Options

[Craig Ranke CIT]

No, you won't ever attempt to talk with the people who were actually there. You may be stupid, dishonest, and crazy, but you aren't suicidal.

WTF are you talking about?

We have a letter of THANKS from a first-responder you idiot.

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Letter20of20Appreciation1.jpg)

We have never "refused" to talk to anyone and we have spoken with dozens of witnesses, first-responders, victims, AND lying operatives.

We have talked with more than one first-responder who does not believe a plane hit the building you fool.

None of the people who held what few scraps of planted wreckage there was had to be in on it.

None of the the first-responders had to be in on it although that doesn't mean that none were.

Of course none of them can possibly refute the north side evidence proving the plane did not hit either because they didn't see the plane dipshit.

You can not provide a SINGLE first-hand account of the plane on the south side.

Not one!

You dismiss scientifically validated hard evidence based on nothing but pure faith in what you were told.

You worship the war machine and work day and night to defend mass murder.

I hate to think what you do with those blood soaked hands while you're getting caned by your master Gary.

Sicko.

[Omega892R09]

...that it didn't sink at all.

As it turns out there are a whole bunch of reasons for thinking that the Titanic didn't sink that night and that in fact it continued to give valuable service until the late 1920s but as RMS Olympic.

And yes witnesses tales of the events surrounding the sinking of a White Star liner are confused because the truth is shrouded in mystery. Consider the unhealthy relationship between J.P.Morgan (shipping and insuarance) and Harland and Wolff part owned by Morgan affilates as was the Californian that just happened to be waiting in the Atlantic for something having taken on a full coal load at Southampton in the middle of a workers strike with coal on strict rationing for important sailings. Why was it that the Californian happened to have loads of blankets aboard - like they were expecting to take on a big load of survivors?

Of course there is much more to this.

[RonWieck]

WTF are you talking about?

We have a letter of THANKS from a first-responder you idiot.

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Letter20of20Appreciation1.jpg)

We have never "refused" to talk to anyone and we have spoken with dozens of witnesses, first-responders, victims, AND lying operatives.

We have talked with more than one first-responder who does not believe a plane hit the building you fool.

None of the people who held what few scraps of planted wreckage there was had to be in on it.

None of the the first-responders had to be in on it although that doesn't mean that none were.

Of course none of them can possibly refute the north side evidence proving the plane did not hit either because they didn't see the plane dipshit.

You can not provide a SINGLE first-hand account of the plane on the south side.

Not one!

You dismiss scientifically validated hard evidence based on nothing but pure faith in what you were told.

You worship the war machine and work day and night to defend mass murder.

I hate to think what you do with those blood soaked hands while you're getting caned by your master Gary.

Sicko.

Gee, what a surprise. Your "first-responder" has no name and can't be verified. Who would've guessed? It is a certainty that your imaginary first-responders who somehow missed the aircraft wreckage have no names either. We'd all LOVE to hear from them, but I have a hunch we never will.

I must remind you that YOU HAVE NO--ZERO--EVIDENCE. You have a tiny handful of cherry-picked witnesses who ALL claim to have seen the plane hit the building. If the flight path they describe, conflicts with the mountain of physical evidence, then THEY are wrong--NOT THE EVIDENCE--.

Your idiotic April Fool's joke about the S&M guy fizzled. Incidentally, which one of you cretins buys his DVDs? Someone had to know about his address, right? Gary has never received any mail addressed to "Tony Holt." (To be completely frank, Gary hasn't quite figured out this mix-up. He's guessing that the guy once held the current 'Hardfire' P.O. box number, but that doesn't explain the 2008 date on the guy's ad.)

There are people here who pretend that there are no photos of numbered parts from AA Flight 77:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/pentagonattackpage2


You, of course, ignored all of my questions. So, is Obama part of the war machine?

One of your beloved jihadists, KSM, is being prosecuted by the evil Americans. Why won't you contact his defense team with your "evidence"? Why, for that matter, are the jihadists so stubborn about their victory? Why won't they acknowledge that they don't exist?

[rob balsamo]

Gee, what a surprise. Your "first-responder" has no name and can't be verified. Who would've guessed? It is a certainty that your imaginary first-responders who somehow missed the aircraft wreckage have no names either. We'd all LOVE to hear from them, but I have a hunch we never will.

Im sure you would, as would most of the anonymous idiots who love to libel and slander anyone speaking out about the mountain of conflicts with the govt story.

Ron, when are you going to go to Arlington to confront the NoC witnesses and tell them they were wrong, lying or hallucinating?

[RonWieck]

Im sure you would, as would most of the anonymous idiots who love to libel and slander anyone speaking out about the mountain of conflicts with the govt story.

Ron, when are you going to go to Arlington to confront the NoC witnesses and tell them they were wrong, lying or hallucinating?

You'll be hearing from the witnesses soon enough.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

You'll be hearing from the witnesses soon enough.

More lies from the submissive piglet.

Did you get your daily lashings yet today?

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Your idiotic April Fool's joke about the S&M guy fizzled. Incidentally, which one of you cretins buys his DVDs? Someone had to know about his address, right? Gary has never received any mail addressed to "Tony Holt." (To be completely frank, Gary hasn't quite figured out this mix-up. He's guessing that the guy once held the current 'Hardfire' P.O. box number, but that doesn't explain the 2008 date on the guy's ad.)

Haha.

Google can be an amazing resource for things like this.

Your buddy is busted.

OF COURSE he denies it!

The fact is that the producer of Hardfire TV has now been fully outed as an S&M porn distributor.

I'm all for free enterprise but the least you could do is be honest about your partner's umm side interests.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

Gee, what a surprise. Your "first-responder" has no name and can't be verified. Who would've guessed?

It is verified. He sent it to us after we first spoke with him.

You don't need to verify sh*t. You need to go and talk to some witnesses about the plane approaching on the north side of the Citgo.

[SwingDangler]

So, we've established that LaGasse has utter contempt for the conscienceless frauds who fabricate, without a shred of evidence, a preposterous "flyover" of the Pentagon. What else should I want to hear from him? He insists that he saw a plane hit the Pentagon, AS DO ALL OF YOUR WITNESSES!
Your continued evasion of my question about the Titanic has fooled no one. We all get the idea that the memories of witnesses to a traumatic event can be extremely unreliable regarding the details. THEY REMEMBER THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE EVENT.

Listen closely: What happened when the CIT frauds asked LaGAsse which of his mutually-exclusive assertions he's prepared to abandon? Oh, they didn't ask him?

What's that? THEY WILL NEVER ASK ANY OF THEIR WITNESSES THAT BASIC QUESTION?

Gee, I wonder why not?

Seeing the plane on a flight path different from the official path and being at ground level view of the Pentagon are two different things. At one point the plane is in the air, easy to see, but very difficult to forget. At another point, the plane is suppose to be at ground level. Not so easy to see, but hard to forget the fireball.

What you should do is study the phenomenon of situational blindness.

When examining the body of work of CIT, one question that skeptics and government true believers often ask, "If the plane flew over, why didn't more people report it?"
This community is already aware of two people who witnessed the flyover. I propose the following human condition explains why more did not report seeing a plane fly over the Pentagon.

Perceptual blindness — including related phenomena known as inattentional blindness and change blindness — occurs commonly in humans. When people are engaged in an engrossing task, such as monitoring swimmers in a pool, they often fail to notice otherwise obvious events because they happen outside the immediate focus of attention. In this way, perceptual blindness can help explain why lifeguards fail to detect victims on the bottom of swimming facilities.

Real-life case studies of this blindness include drivers running over bicyclists, train engineers plowing into cars, submarine pilots surfacing under ships and airline pilots landing on other planes. In each case, the object or obstruction should have been easily noticed but was not.

That’s because even though the observers were “looking” right at the missed events, their attention was focused on other visual stimuli, or they were otherwise cognitively engaged (e.g., talking on a cell phone). Strikingly, those involved in these crashes usually have no idea there was an object there, and cannot explain their failure to have seen it. Although a lack of vigilance often produces poor surveillance on the part of lifeguards, it appears that even the most vigilant observers suffer from perceptual blindness. In fact, the more vigilant one becomes in preventing accidents, the more prone one may be to missing a body on the bottom of the pool.

This is because the more focused guards become with their visual task of monitoring parts of the pool, the more susceptible they are to failing to notice events that are outside of this intense focus of attention.

Demonstrations of change blindness, which is the failure to notice large changes across different views of a scene, produce similar results. Research on these forms of blindness is being conducted at Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Illinois, Penn State, University of Paris and other institutions around the world.
Source: A Matter of Perception

In the case of the Pentagon attack, people were so focused on the visual stimuli, ie. the sound, the explosion and resulting fireball, and the smoke and smoke screen from the trailer or they were turning and talking to friends about what they witnessed. The otherwise easily noticed flyover plane would have been completely missed and perhaps even suspected to be in the area due to Regan International airport anyway. Fly overs and low flying planes are routine in the area and not out of the ordinary as many of CIT's witnesses explain.

Does this sound too far fetched? Test yourself below, I did!

To view the video, you will need to have Java active in your browser. It is also best viewed in full screen mode if possible. I have the video in Real Player for full screen use. PM me if you want it and I can forward it to you.

When viewing the video, try to count the total number of times that the people wearing white pass the basketball to other people in white.
Video is located at the
Visual Congnition Lab, University of Illinois
Situational Blindness
How many passes were made by the people in white?

Watch it again.

Did you notice anything else unusual?

[forthetrees]

Thanks for the link to the perception test video. Sort of like not being able to see the forest for the trees, eh?