Back to Skepticism about Flight 77
Well, not exactly. I think it is most likely that flight 77 did indeed hit the Pentagon.
However.... I am now a little skeptical of the article I linked to two posts down, by John Judge, where gives the story of an American Airlines flight attendent who toured the Pentagon wreckage and saw identifiable debris from the plane.
Here's the reason I am skeptical-- she toured the crash site 11 days after the crash! Are we really suposed to believe there were so many recognizable pieces of the plane that were still lying around?
First:
"Once inside the fence, she was unable to clearly discern where the original wall had been. There was just a gaping hole. She got off the van and walked inside the crash site."
Didn't the building collapse on top of the crash site? How could she have walked around in there? This doesn't make a lot of sense.
Then she claims "She also saw charred human bones but not any flesh or full body parts."
Is this really believable workers wouldn't have taken human remains away by Sept. 22 if they were readily recognizable?
Moreover:
"She saw parts of the inside of the plane, which she easily identified since she flew and worked in them for years. Upholstery, drapes and carpeting she could identify by both color and design. The soft carpeting and padding of the inner walls had a cloud design and color she recognized from American Airline planes, though it has since been replaced. The blue coloring of drapes and carpet were also specific to the 757 or 767 larger planes, and were not used on the smaller planes. Seating upholstery also matched the AA 757 planes, including the blue color, tan squares and hints of white."
Are we to believe that carpet and upholstery and drapes didn't burn in the massive fire that raged inside the hit building?
Finally, Judge links to a Rense story that gives some accounts of plane wreckage in the Pentagon, and shows a bunch of pictures, some of which I hadn't seen before. The problem is that this Rense story says: "(1) Much of the debris was burned and torn beyond recognition, (2) Most FEMA photos in the public domain were taken on 9/14/01, after much of the debris was cleared out of the building."
So most of the plane debris, which was mostly unrecognizable, was taken away before 9/14-- yet eight days later, we are to believe this stewardess really saw multiple recognizeable parts of the plane as well as human remains?
I'm not saying she's lying, but this story just seems a little too neat and tidy. It's all very believable of course, with lots of personal touches and details. Hard to know how someone would make it up, but still it is awfully neat and tidy.
She was a regular stewardess on flight 77, but missed it unexpectedly on 9/11. They throw in the nice tidbit that this stewardess is a researcher and skeptic of the government, and thus should be trusted completely. However, this stewardess remains anonymous.
Why can't we have her name?
Finally, Judge tries to dispell the cell phone problem saying that lots of stewardesses hear them in flights all the time. Isn't that nice that they put that in there?
----File this under disinformation?
However.... I am now a little skeptical of the article I linked to two posts down, by John Judge, where gives the story of an American Airlines flight attendent who toured the Pentagon wreckage and saw identifiable debris from the plane.
Here's the reason I am skeptical-- she toured the crash site 11 days after the crash! Are we really suposed to believe there were so many recognizable pieces of the plane that were still lying around?
First:
"Once inside the fence, she was unable to clearly discern where the original wall had been. There was just a gaping hole. She got off the van and walked inside the crash site."
Didn't the building collapse on top of the crash site? How could she have walked around in there? This doesn't make a lot of sense.
Then she claims "She also saw charred human bones but not any flesh or full body parts."
Is this really believable workers wouldn't have taken human remains away by Sept. 22 if they were readily recognizable?
Moreover:
"She saw parts of the inside of the plane, which she easily identified since she flew and worked in them for years. Upholstery, drapes and carpeting she could identify by both color and design. The soft carpeting and padding of the inner walls had a cloud design and color she recognized from American Airline planes, though it has since been replaced. The blue coloring of drapes and carpet were also specific to the 757 or 767 larger planes, and were not used on the smaller planes. Seating upholstery also matched the AA 757 planes, including the blue color, tan squares and hints of white."
Are we to believe that carpet and upholstery and drapes didn't burn in the massive fire that raged inside the hit building?
Finally, Judge links to a Rense story that gives some accounts of plane wreckage in the Pentagon, and shows a bunch of pictures, some of which I hadn't seen before. The problem is that this Rense story says: "(1) Much of the debris was burned and torn beyond recognition, (2) Most FEMA photos in the public domain were taken on 9/14/01, after much of the debris was cleared out of the building."
So most of the plane debris, which was mostly unrecognizable, was taken away before 9/14-- yet eight days later, we are to believe this stewardess really saw multiple recognizeable parts of the plane as well as human remains?
I'm not saying she's lying, but this story just seems a little too neat and tidy. It's all very believable of course, with lots of personal touches and details. Hard to know how someone would make it up, but still it is awfully neat and tidy.
She was a regular stewardess on flight 77, but missed it unexpectedly on 9/11. They throw in the nice tidbit that this stewardess is a researcher and skeptic of the government, and thus should be trusted completely. However, this stewardess remains anonymous.
Why can't we have her name?
Finally, Judge tries to dispell the cell phone problem saying that lots of stewardesses hear them in flights all the time. Isn't that nice that they put that in there?
----File this under disinformation?
posted by spooked at 1:51 PM
1 Comments:
John Judge is a much more careful and cautious analyst than many of the instant "9/11 researchers" infesting the web.
The evidence for the Pentagon plane does indeed point to the fact that a large plane definitely did hit the Pentagon.
see some of the evidence at http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html
the real issue is how the nearly empty part of the Pentagon was hit
http://www.oilempire.us/remote.html
Some of the links on your site are questionable and need peer review (if not merely a DELETE key). A detailed analysis of bogus claims masquerading as 9/11 evidence is at http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html
9/11 Closeup -- A site that promotes silly claims that no plane hit the World Trade Center North Tower. Yuck.
911 Review - 911review.com is a much better site than 911review.org -- the "org" site promotes proven disinformation such as the "pod plane" claims and the "no plane at the WTC North Tower" and carefully steers away from real evidence such as the War Games, the stock trades on United and American, etc. 911review.com exposes the disinfo strategies being used to muddy the waters by sites such as 911review.org
911 Strike -- a mixed bag site, promotes a variety of misinformation efforts mixed in with truthful material. The webmaster is vocally supportive of "pod plane" material, tried to sabotage the San Francisco 9/11 Inquiry in March 2004, and promotes neo-nazis on the site as alleged historians who supposedly have the truth about the Holocaust. No thanks.
911 Uncovered - more pod plane nonsense
911 Truth Movement Musings - a site specializing in "snitch jacketing," the false accusation that hard working activists are really agents provocateurs
Killtown - more nonsense about the Pentagon crash mixed with some real evidence. Note in particular it is hosted by "webfairy" and "911review.org."
INN World Report -- more mixed reporting. Some of the reporting (ie. on the wargames) is first rate. Some of the reporting (the "woodybox" stories) is woefully short of verifiable evidence.
The Mysteries of 9/11 -- fun with photoshop!
9/11 Skeptics Unite! -- a gossip column from a writer who thinks that demanding peer review for implausible claims that lack evidence is a "smear campaign against 9/11 scientists"
Physics911 - another slick disinfo site about the Pentagon plane crash
Center for an Informed America - (CIA) - this site started off with excellent analysis that established its "bona fides," then promoted Stalinism (really!) and now spends much effort attacking Mike Ruppert for daring to connect the dots between Peak Oil and 9/11.
Tom Flocco -- another in a long list of mixed bags - has written some good material, but also promotes the fake film "inplanesite" and the associated bogus website "letsroll911" see http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html for detailed analysis on how these fake campaigns are used to discredit serious research.
Public Action (Carol Valentine) -- author of a particularly nasty attack on Phil Berg, former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania, who is representing 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani in her RICO lawsuit against Bush, et al. The Public Action site has a few nuggets of truth mixed together with a lot of disinformation, which seems to be par for the course with many 9/11 sites.
Post a Comment
<< Home