Friday, December 4, 2015

Analysis of Claim of "Trump Video"


Donald Trump said he saw a video of Muslims celebrating 9/11 in the street of which "thousands" were celebrating the fall of the Twin Towers.  Media denies the existence of such a video. 

I posted a statement for analysis by the readers here at the Statement Analysis Blog.   

This statement was made in response to the news article in which Donald Trump made the claim.  The article had others who said they also saw the video including some that added an extra detail about the U.S. flag. 

I asked for analysis of the statement first, and then a profile of the author from readers.  Some readers expressed doubt to the veracity, but most claimed it was a truthful statement, that is, one that proceeded from experiential memory.  We know that it is a lengthy amount of time that has passed which will impact our analysis.  

I.  The Statement 
II.  The Analysis
III.  The Analysis Conclusion 

I.  The Statement 

"I saw the 9/11 video of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey.  I was shocked and wondered, "why do they hate us?" I was surprised when the video did not replay over and over.  Back then, the news was on "constant alert status" with repeated video of the towers, people running and so on.  
The video was more like 'hundreds' and not 'thousands' and I saw people dancing in the street, singing, jumping up and down.  I saw men, women and children celebrating. Recently I read people saying that American flags were stepped on and I think I recall that, too, but I am not certain."  


II.  The statement with analysis. 





"I saw the 9/11 video of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey. 

                    This is a very strong statement.  

Keep in mind the "formula for reliability" and that "short sentences are best" as you work through it. 

a.  It begins with the pronoun "I", increasing odds of reliability.  This is only to increase the odds, it is not a conclusion on its own. 

b.  It uses the past tense "saw" which is part of the formula for reliability.  Since most people lie by omission, this formula is essential in investigating because it tells us truth and can guide us as to things that really did happen. 

If "I saw the 9/11 video..." is a lie, it is a rare, direct lie and a signal that the subject is a pathological liar; that is one who fabricates reality and lies in life as his baseline, or normal course.  If asked, "Why should we believe you?" he would be incapable of looking at this statement and saying, "Because I told you the truth."

Also, if this is a direct lie, we should pick up signals that this did not come from his own experience.  

c.  He calls it "the" video; that is, one specified.  Since the statement is in response to a news article, the article, "the" is appropriate.  Had no such video been mentioned, the article "a video" should have been used.  Consistency noted. 

d.  Note there is nothing to qualify or modify the sentence.  This is where shorter sentences are considered "best" in that truth is readily seen in them, as their is an 'absence' of the need to persuade (NTP) within them.  The need to persuade is a signal of sensitivity; not necessarily due to deception, thought it could be.  It may be that the subject believes that many doubt him.  It is but one of many signals that we not only view, but must put into our professional conclusion.  Analysis deals with what one says, and what one does not say.  Here, the subject did not say, 

"I think I saw", 

or the weaker,

"I think I may have seen.."


 I was shocked and wondered, "why do they hate us?" 

Here is an inclusion of emotion in the memory and it is as the "logical" portion of the account.  This is often a signal of "artificial placement" in a statement. 

Why?

Because it takes time to process emotion.  In an immediate event, one might report,

"I was at the corner of Richmond Avenue when a man pulled a gun on me.  He told me to hand over my wallet.  He ran off.  I was scared for my life."

Here, the emotions come 'after' the gun pulling.  In story telling, the same account might sound like this if the subject was scamming and knew the 'robber':  

"I was at the corner of Richmond Avenue and felt like something was just not right.  I was really scared.  The man pulled out his gun and said I should give him cash and then he ran off. "

In factual accounts, the most important issues come first, and then the emotions.  To put them in the "perfect" or "logical" spot, suggests artificial placement.   

Psychologically, it takes time to process emotions. 

In this statement, the subject's emotional response about hatred is in the logical portion of the account.  This is a strong signal that experiential memory is in play.  

Question:  Why isn't it "artificial placement"?

Answer:  Because enough time has elapsed and the emotion (and question) have long been processed and explored.  This is justified, not only by the year of the event, but it is found also within the language, as the question posed is actually answered by the subject.  This shows lengthy thought. 

                Emotion is a chemical  enhancer of  memory.  

Seeing an event leaves an imprint upon the brain. 
Seeing an event that impacts emotionally, increases the impact (via hormones) upon the brain.  
Recall is easier the stronger the emotion.  This is why in long term memory victims will say, "I remember feeling such disgust when he put his hands on me..."

Sexual assault victims often include small sensory detail which impacts emotion such as "his breath was like cigarette" or "his hands smelled like motor oil"or other sensory enhancers of memory that further solidified the event in the subject's memory.  

Principle:  Note the location of emotions in a statement.  Is emotion artificially placed or has enough time passed where the emotion has been thoroughly processed by the brain.  This comes down to the skill of the analyst, based upon experience.  Thus, the need for formal and ongoing training.  

I was surprised when the video did not replay over and over.  

Here, the emotion is again connected, and it is appropriated to a specific event that did not take place, making it "very important."  The subject should tell us what took place, not what did not take place.  Therefore, this sentence is now asserting something that needs to be answered:

Q.  Why would the subject remember what did not happen?

We look for him to guide us: 

Back then, the news was on "constant alert status" with repeated video of the towers, people running and so on.  

A.  Here, he justifies the concern of the negative.  The news was incessant and he specifically references memory of the same video: people running from the towers.

Therefore, the sensitivity of the negative is appropriately answered by the subject, himself.  


The video was more like 'hundreds' and not 'thousands' 

Here we have another concern of that in the negative, but the context of the news story, itself justifies it.  Donald Trump asserted that "thousands" celebrated.  The subject read the news story and differs on this point. 

This is a strong signal of motivation: 

The subject is motivated by memory, and not in defense of Donald Trump.  This may suggest that he is not a fan of Trumps, or in the least, his priority is truth, and not supporting Donald Trump's statement for political reasons.  This is important given Trump's reason for being in the news article, itself.  


and I saw people dancing in the street, singing, jumping up and down.  
Here we have the formula for reliability again:

1.  Pronoun "I"
2.  Past tense verb
3.  No modification or qualifying 

Note he gives specifics:

a.  dancing
b.  singing 
c.  jumping up and down 

This is to report what he saw, rather than a conclusion.  This is a change from "I saw Muslims celebrating" which is very specific:

"I saw the video of Muslims celebrating" which refers to the video, not the celebration. 
Here, the change is another signal that experiential memory is in play:  this is not a summation of the video, it is a description of what he saw:  "people" and they were not "celebrating", but were "dancing, singing jumping up and down..."

When language changes, there should be a change in reality.  If this change of reality is in the context, the analyst is looking at experiential memory in play. 

If there is no justification for the change, the analyst must now question if the subject is making this up as he goes along and has lost track of his lies, since the lies are non-experiential memory, with no emotional (hormonal) impact upon the brain, assisting memory. 

It was the "video" of "Muslims celebrating" but it was within the video that he saw "people", and what they were doing.  This is also to suggest that the author does not have bias towards the Muslim people, but sees them as "people" and not just "Muslims" in the context of the attack upon the Twin Towers.  This is why profiling is so important:

It can reveal gender, age, education, background and experiences, personality and motive.  

The subject goes further to explain why here, they are not "Muslims" but they are "people":


I saw men, women and children celebrating. 

The change of language is justified.  "People" are, specifically, "men, women and children."  

Also note that this sentence follows our formula for reliability.  

The change of language that shows experiential memory looks like this.

Allegation: Female employee stole jewelry.  

"I would never steal anything from the store.  I saw the jewelry in the case and the customer wanted to see it.  I let her handle the jewelry and then I took the necklace back to put it back into the case"

Here we have signals of guilt.  Yet, the subject is telling the truth. 

First, the subject did not deny stealing with "would never" violating our principle of Reliable Denial, but also note two very important indicators:

a.  "jewelry" became a "necklace" when it was in the subject's own hands.  
b.  The subject should tell us "what happened"; instead, she told us "why" she did something.  This "why" means she anticipated being asked.  
c.  That she went to put it back in the case is unnecessary, making it very important. 

She tells us what she "went" to do, but not what she did.  

The "jewelry" remained "jewelry" when the customer saw it, and when the customer handled it, but it 'changed' into 'necklace' when the employee had it.  

She had stolen it. 

 Yet, in her sentence, she is reliable and can guide us.  The surveillance camera showed a  motion 'towards' the case while slipping it into her pocket.  Even in this tiny detail, she was reliable, which is why her sentences felt no need to modify or support them with qualifiers.  

In this case, the change of language showed that she was, in deed, speaking from experiential memory.  She did go to put it back, but then diverted it. 

Her statement is 100% truthful, yet it is deceptive by that which is missing.  Even "I would never..." may be truthful, now that she is frightened out of her mind, this future conditional statement may be something she believes.  


Recently 

Here, the subject goes "out of sequence."  This is only out of sequence for us, the reader, and remains there until we understand the subject's own thinking, and then the sequence will make sense.  The 9/11 attack and video were years ago.  The subject has jumped in time.  


I read people saying that American flags were stepped on and I think I recall that, too, but I am not certain."  

In new articles (which now include video reports) the subject has moved to chronologically to the time of the news article about Trump.  In it, he recounts this additional fact. 

He qualifies seeing it with "think", which is a 'weak assertion.'  

Is this reliable?

Note the word "that" shows distancing language.  This is consistent with the weak assertion of "think."

This consistency suggests truth. 

Then, he makes it plain by way of rebutting or minimizing by comparison with the word "but"

"I am not certain" uses the pronoun "I" and the present tense "am", which is consistent with his weak assertion. 

"I locked my keys in the car" is strong;
"I think I locked my keys in the car" is weaker, expressing uncertainty, but is also truthful. It suggests that the keys may be somewhere else, a place he may be thinking of. 

"I think I may have locked my keys in the car" suggests that, in the mind of the subject, the keys could be there, or in a number of other places.  It, too, has appropriate weakness and is a signal of honesty.  

The context tells us if the weakness is appropriate or not. 

"I don't think I cheated...." or the obvious, "I think I didn't kill him..."

Analysis Conclusion: 

The subject speaks from experiential memory:  he is truthful.  
He shows some distancing language from Donald Trump, which shows priority which is truthful recall, and not defense nor support of Donald Trump. 

The change of language and inclusion of emotion affirms experiential memory.  This is further buttressed by the lack of sensitivity indicator, and the lack of additional words "needing to persuade" the audience.  

The subject refuses to commit to seeing the American flag,  which indicates, in context, the commitment to memory.  This lack of affirm may be due to seeing other videos or pictures of the American flag being burned or stepped on, which he appears to support, but without confidence that he saw it in this specific video. 

 This is another signal of priority being truth.  

 The author saw the video and showed an expectation of seeing it repeatedly but was surprised, that it was not repeated.  This, too, would impact memory as he considered if the video was no longer to be played that a reason had to exist. 

If the subject were to be polygraphed he would pass.  

Thank you to all who participated.  I recognize that when you put your own name on your conclusion, you are taking a stance which invites criticism, but in doing so, you are further able to learn.  It also allows me to gauge the factors within opinions, such as 'need to persuade' and even agenda, which sometimes comes in the revelation of 'passive aggressive' sentences, where one is more interested in, for example, discrediting the politician, than in discerning truth from deception. 

Although this is a small example, if you are interested in hosting a seminar for your company or department, or wish for intense formal training, please contact Hyatt Analysis Services.

Any enrollment includes 12 months of follow up e-support, including job interviewing, and confidential case assistance. 

Successful completion of the course allows for the professional to join in monthly training with other professionals from around the country, Canada and Europe.  These trainings are monthly and include live ongoing cases, employment application analysis, profiling and Anonymous Author Identification.   






32 comments:

trustmeigetit said...

I saw videos too. Not sure why this has any doubters?

There are still videos on YouTube.

This is part of my issue with taking in refuges. So many in the Middle East hate Americans and our ways that to me is just makes no sense.

And at the end of the day, it may help some it's not solving the issue. And taking 5% of those struggling again solves nothing.

GeekRad said...

This is a very strong reliable denial. His statements are a great example for applying Statement Analysis! Thank you Peter.

Anonymous said...

Oh shoot! Back when we were initially analyzing that statement quoted here, I thought those were TRUMP's words - I didn't realize that was just some unknown person's reaction to the story. Now, re-reading the statement for analysis, I realize how biased I was (that the statement was deceptive), because I thought it was the words of Trump. Reading the statement again now, it sounds credible and reliable! Ha ha! Good thing I don't do SA for a living!

rosy said...

I've seen footage of the newscast Trump thinks he remembers. Millions of Americans saw it. It was shown live on FOX, CNN, and MSNBC. It showed Palestinians celebrating in East Jerusalem. I was in Manhattan on 9/11 and after. I followed the news closely. No one was dancing in the streets of New Jersey. Here's a clip of report by one network, FOX, of the celebrations in East Jerusalem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKT-9OpneoY

BL said...

I remember seeing those videos too but thought they were in Iran. It could be that Trump saw one of those videos -- which I clearly recall seeing -- but didn't realize the newscast had switched from talking about New Jersey commuters etc. in relation to the events of 9/11 to now show events in another country. There is no way visually you would know it wasn't NJ since it was just showing people yelling and jumping -- you would have had to have clearly heard the announcer's switch of location. I assume this is what happened which is why Trump's account is reliable. He saw the video and honestly thought it was in NJ. So he's not lying but is perhaps mistaken on location. Unless there is a NJ video. I live in NJ and few Muslims in NJ would be that obvious -- even if they were on the terrorist's side, they would most likely not show it openly and in front of news cameras, knowing they might be arrested given the fear at the time and intensity of trying to arrest anyone connected to the events. But in Iran or elsewhere in the Middle East, people would feel safe putting on a display like that.

Jamie Brooks said...

Peter HyattDecember 2, 2015 at 4:19 PM
First: The statement is reliable. It is truthful, and the audio showed he spoke freely and the change of language is justified.


So, it was an audio comment to a written article?

I asked for analysis of the statement first, and then a profile of the author from readers.

What are you willing to share about the author's profile? What can we glean about him from the statement?

Peter Hyatt said...

Jamie,

on the other post there are some comments on profile, including some male, some female, and their reasons.

Weigh in.

I will eventually give details about the author to answer profile

Peter

Jamie Brooks said...

Thank you! Mine was this one:

"I saw the 9/11 video of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey. I was shocked and wondered, "why do they hate us?" I was surprised when the video did not replay over and over. Back then, the news was on "constant alert status" with repeated video of the towers, people running and so on.
The video was more like 'hundreds' and not 'thousands' and I saw people dancing in the street, singing, jumping up and down. I saw men, women and children celebrating. Recently I read people saying that American flags were stepped on and I think I recall that, too, but I am not certain."

Male
55-65
middle class educated professional in a field like science or business

intelligent and thoughtful but not well read, so not highly intelligent in terms of reading/writing level

First generation college educated in his family, was not raised by college educated parents

The sentence structure is simple, multiclausal sentences awkwardly combined or simple clauses then evolves to listing

vocabulary not complex- description reliable but simplistic “…the towers, people running and so on” (Nothing more graphic than “the towers”?)

Wants to come across as educated and enunciates words carefully “but I am not certain” (no “I’m” contraction, ‘recall’ instead of ‘remember’)

Calm, patient, not prone to anger (older)

Does not commit to seeing it on 9/11 only that he saw THE video in question (Does he believe there is only one video?)

“American flags were stepped on”- passive voice. Who stepped on American flags?

MsSkeptic said...

If we are trying to uncover the truth about some event, to what extent do false memories hinder us? Theoretically you could have lots of people believe that they remembered such and such an event, but in-fact it never happened.

What I would want to ask the person who made this statement is: "how do you know this took place in New Jersey? Do you remember any details from the video that would place it in New Jersey and not some other part of the world"? There is no detail in the statement to support that this particular video took place in New Jersey and that, after all, is the heart of the controversy.

Horse chestnut said...

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-12-03/circumcision-ambulance-stolen-in-east-london-found-in-a-pub-car-park/


Three thugs steal a circumcision ambulance Peter. Good stuff.


John mcgowan said...

The subjectivity of "ideology," in to days current climate. Is a world, unto it's self.

Peter Hyatt said...

Great article on Belgium in American Thinker today. 14 years and they will be Islamic country. The violence is so bad that Jews are not safe in Europe any longer, said the top rabbi there.

Anonymous said...

Okay. I saw the video too, or one from somewhere of a similar nature, not necessarily New Jersey. It could have been anywhere. I don't have any idea now where the clip was shot, what I saw was just a quick swing of cameras onto a circle of people jumping around, yelling and dancing in and out of view on a burning American flag. It was nighttime and dark in the area and the fire of the flag lit up the area brightly. I do remember them specifically waving the burning flag, yelling and dancing around on it as they threw it onto the ground.

What I saw was not a large group of people but there could have been hundreds or thousands of people in the general area. I remember thinking at the time, how evil is this, helpless and innocent people had jumped out of windows and thousands are dead and dying and lying in pieces in the smoking rubble, many we don't even know where they are, and here are those sick evil people celebrating their horrible death? Who could hate anyone this much, people they don't even know?

It distressed me so I couldn't even watch it at the time and turned it off. Yes it did happen, but where? I remember it as vividly as if it happened yesterday. I do not remember where or if I ever knew where it happened at the time. The media can forget denying they showed such a clip as someone in our media certainly did. ABB

OPN said...

“It also allows me to gauge the factors within opinions, such as 'need to persuade' and even agenda, which sometimes comes in the revelation of 'passive aggressive' sentences, where one is more interested in, for example, discrediting the politician, than in discerning truth from deception.” 

Hmm. In case that was my comment, I will explain. My comment that neurosurgeon Ben Carson should have been able to discern that the video wasn't NJ Muslims since it wasn't replayed frequently wasn’t passive aggression or intentional discrediting. I donated to Ben Carson's campaign in August. After reaffirming his belief that the pyramids were built under the direction of Joseph and incorrectly assuming that this was his statement, I was worried that he had some unknown cognitive deficits.

There are some logical arguments online for the "Joseph built the pyramids" belief, but they are contradicted by inscriptions found inside the pyramids and also by carbon dating.

Anonymous said...

A news report about Muslims in Jersey City celebrating on a rooftop after the attacks. They actually had a model of the towers on the roof with them. No video of the celebration, but it is described. Can one mix audio memory (about NJ celebration) with visual memory (Muslims jumping/burning American flag in another country)?

http://www.infowars.com/trump-was-right-video-describes-how-jersey-city-muslims-held-pre-planned-911-rooftop-celebration/

Anonymous said...

Here is more coverage of Muslims "celebrating" around the world at the time, with some mention of three people in Liberty Park in Jersey City celebrating:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/abc-news-footage-shows-911-celebrations/story?id=35534125

Deejay said...

I believe that there was footage in the 2001 news clips of men and boys celebrating, praising Allah, pointing their fingers up, etc. However, they were located in some Muslim country.

BTW- being human, memories do change over time and become tangled with other life experiences. (this is not intentional, nor is it meant by the person to be dishonest) A professor had his students in college write down what they were doing on the day, how they found out, and other details that Pres. Kennedy was shot in Dallas in 1963. Years later, he contacted as many as possible, and their memories had changed. Similar written studies have been conducted over the years, using mass tragedies such as 9-11. One of the consistent changes in human memory between "then and now" memory is that the brain tends to fill in 'logical' things that must have happened. Time fades some details for each person. Of note, though, the associated emotions did not change.

Peter Hyatt said...

Deejay,

Why do you believe that the footage was in another country?


Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

MsSkeptic,

Statement Analysis picks up indicators of sensitivity for the purpose of deception.

If someone is incorrect, but has no intention of deception, analysis will not show this.

If I said, "Ms. Skeptic, my car is black" when it is in read, if you were to tell someone that my car is black, you would not be lying. You would be incorrect.

It is within the intention to deceive that we pick up in our analysis.

Peter

Doubtful said...

Anonymous rosy said...
I've seen footage of the newscast Trump thinks he remembers. Millions of Americans saw it. It was shown live on FOX, CNN, and MSNBC. It showed Palestinians celebrating in East Jerusalem. I was in Manhattan on 9/11 and after. I followed the news closely. No one was dancing in the streets of New Jersey. Here's a clip of report by one network, FOX, of the celebrations in East Jerusalem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKT-9OpneoY

December 4, 2015 at 3:49 PM Delete



wow, what arrogance! "no one was dancing in the streets of New Jersey"

so Rosy you know as a fact, that throughout the entire state of New Jersey, no one danced in the street.

wow.

I come here to learn and this type of stupidness makes me wonder. I thought you people were all about proving what you say and backing it up with words. Is this statement analysis?

Doubtful said...

yea OPN I see what you mean about Ben Carson it has nothing to do with this article and about statement analysis but you just had to say it this is what i mean about such a stupid site. another poster saying they are into analyzing for truth yet used this to slam someone unbelievable. Rosy, are you and OPN the same?

is this the teaching of this site?

Peter Hyatt said...

Regarding the possibility of error: please see my reply above.

If the video was in another country, but the wording on the screen said, "New Jersey", the statement would not be deceptive.

Deception is discerned in the intention of misleading. Thus, "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" recognizes that people can be 100% truthful, technically, while leaving out critical information.

Peter

MsSkeptic said...

Thank you Peter for your response. I do understand what you are saying.

If we are trying to discern the objective truth though, subjective truths will confuse the investigation.

What can we do about that? What questions can be asked to "grade" the accuracy of the memory? I believe I've heard that the phenomena of false memory is quite prevalent.

Peter Hyatt said...

Grading the quality of the memory is something that has shifted quite a bit, with researching going back to the early 1900's in Germany, specifically regarding children.

A great deal of work goes into discrediting victims by defense attorneys in the modern "win at all costs" but thus far, nothing has reached the level of accuracy as S/A.

The one thing that I find a strength within grading memory is sensory description. Yet, even this is used in deception, so here is how the highest results are found:

1. Change of language.

This is something that is not used by deceptive people other than the silly "I lost track of my words" thing: in other words, deceptive people of intellect and purpose, do not 'deliberately' change language.

It is something that happens so fast that the brain does not stop and say, "Hmm, I will call it "necklace" now, but before, I called it "jewelry" to appear truthful.

We find it extremely reliable.

So...

if you take the formula of reliability AND you take change of language AND you find sensory description (within a reliable statement), the quality of the memory is such that the person has no intention of deceiving.

The most tricky case I had:

He Said; She Said

She said she witnessed an assault so frightening that she ran out of the building.

He denied assaulting the patient.

Both wrote statements

both were truthful in what they wrote according to the analysis.

I used the sensitivity indicators of her statement in the interview. It revealed that she has been severely abused in childhood and then in serial domestic violence relationships.

They both saw the same thing but her trigger was such that she interpreted it one way but it was another.

The company was great. I explained that she had not lied, but the gentle rough housing she witnessed triggered a severe response.

They responded by actually getting her professional intervention.

To this day, I think of the company's owner, and I respect her a great deal.

Msskeptic,

you provided a good platform for learning; I appreciate it. I am not always availble for commenting back and forth, but when I am, I find myself in good learning situations.

Peter

Jamie Brooks said...

I get that we are looking for intent to deceive and won't find deception if someone is misinformed, though would hesitate to call them "truthful" if they are incorrect (nor would I call them "liars".)

On a different note, as I read the comments, elsewhere, these patterns strike me as prominent (paraphrase, not quotes):

Trump: I saw the video of thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating as the towers came down.

"The media": No such video exists.

Some comments: Well, it may have been hundreds or a rooftop full or it may be somewhere else other than New Jersey, but the media is lying.


Then alternately:

Trump: I saw the video of thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating as the towers came down.

"The media": No such video exists

Some commenters: It wasn't hundreds and it wasn't in New Jersey, so Trump is lying.


Ah the joys of subjective truth when it's "us versus them"! Have we lost the ability to put our biases aside and get to the real truth? Sad, really.

OPN: it's not Carson who made the statement :)

OPN said...

@Doubtful
This is a valuable site, not a stupid one. Peter Hyatt is sharing his expertise and providing it for free.

I'm not Rosy.

Deejay said...

Peter- I believe that many US Muslims were saddened, and others probably celebrated 9-11-2001. But I do not believe that thousands were filmed marching pro-9 11 in New Jersey streets.

However, lots of Muslims in other countries which hate the US, openly celebrated in the streets. The film footage of those in other countries (men and boys only, as women are not often allowed out of the house) celebrating was easy to obtain and openly disseminated, Al-Jeezera, etc. Therefore the most likely explanation of seeing big 9-11 celebrations on US news stations would have been footage from other countries, say Palestine.

(As you might guess, I like SA and believe it reveals much, but I do always try to look at things from a logical perspective also.)

Jamie Brooks said...

"Like"

OPN said...

Chris Christie, Governor of NJ, was interviewed on this topic. Here’s what he said:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/christie-refutes-trump-claim-muslims-cheering-9-11-article-1.2444058

"I don't recall that. I don't," the Garden State 2016 candidate said, according to NJ Advance Media.

"It was a pretty emotional time for me because, as I've mentioned before, there's family involved, there were, you know, friends involved and so it was a pretty harrowing time," Christie said, referencing the fact that his wife worked in downtown Manhattan during the time of the attacks.

"I do not remember that, and so it's not something that was part of my recollection. I think if it had happened, I would remember it, but, you know, there could be things I forget, too."

OPN said...

"I don't recall that. I don't," the Garden State 2016 candidate said, according to NJ Advance Media.

"It was a pretty emotional time for me because, as I've mentioned before, there's family involved, there were, you know, friends involved and so it was a pretty harrowing time," Christie said, referencing the fact that his wife worked in downtown Manhattan during the time of the attacks.

"I do not remember that, and so it's not something that was part of my recollection. I think if it had happened, I would remember it, but, you know, there could be things I forget, too."
-----

Chris Christie used “I” and q past tense verb, but used “that” as the direct object instead of saying ““thousands of celebrating NJ Muslims”. Does this show some deception?

He used "do not" which is a negative, but it was appropriate for the questioned asked.
There is no change of language and there is emotion attached which is part of being a reliable truthful statement.

OPN said...


"But, you know, there could be things I forget, too"
Logically thinking, this is serious hedging/deception. Unless he has some serious brain or mental health impairment, he remembers what happened on 9/1/01. The DAY BEFORE 9/1/01 he had just been told by the White House that he was going to be US Attorney for NJ.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/08/911_attacks_changed_chris_chri.html

Blogger said...

WE'RE LOOKING FOR LIVE CAM MODELS!
PROFIT MORE THAN $10,000 EVERY WEEK.
REGISTER AS A BONGA MODELS WEBCAM MODEL TODAY!