Category Anti-War

Entries 68 Total

Seeing the World From a 9/10 Perspective

Sep 10, 08 1:52 PM

Seven years ago today, we were all completely oblivious to what was going on.  Life was normal (as we saw it).  We didn’t want to be bothered with searches at the airport; don’t inconvenience us, we said.  Just get us from point A to point B without a fuss.  We don’t want to deal with security.  It’ll never happen to us. 

If only we’d known.  I’ve since heard people say that Islam was never meant to be this radical fringe.  I daresay that’s likely true to the people who say that; then again, I’ve read the Qur’an.  I speak some Arabic.  After 9/11, I took it upon myself to learn all I could about Sharia culture.  Some Muslims may honestly believe what they say, that Islam is peaceful at its core.  It’s unfortunate that those folks are the depressed minority.

It is not only the Qur’an but Sharia law and culture itself that gives Muslims the right and the power to take the world over for Islam.  During the Barbary Wars between the fledgling United States and the Pasha of Tripoli (and the surrounding Ottoman Empire), Thomas Jefferson learned that Muslims are brought up to believe that they have the right to take whatever they like from infidels and kill infidels whenever it suits them.  According to Sharia, it’s their god-given right.

Today, we see the dangers of Islam and Sharia in all corners of the world.  In countries where Sharia is the law, there is no such thing as “human rights.”  Women are objects, men are the power, and no infidel has any right to so much as live.  In countries where Muslims are the minority but have some visibility in the public, they have learned to get what they want by claiming racism and “islamophobia” to scare the populace into bowing.  It’s like that in some European countries, including England.  Yet we insist on giving them equal rights, knowing full well that if they have the chance, they will take ours away and enslave or kill us because their religion says they should.

What does this have to do with my series of 9/11 Truth Movement articles?  The so-called “truth movement” is just as dangerous to us as Islam.  It denies the danger that radical Sharia beliefs pose to our way of life, and in so doing threaten to return us to what life was like seven years ago today, when we were all in denial of what had already been set in motion.  The “truth movement” happily ignores the reality that Mideast Muslims want us all dead.  People like Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, Korey Rowe, Alex Jones and David Ray Griffin perpetuate half-truths and outright malicious lies to try to convince Americans that they’re still safe, at least from our own government.

Mark my words–there is no threat to us now that is nearly as dangerous as radical Islam.  Journalist Steve Emerson has tracked the Sharia movement in the United States since before the Oklahoma City bombing in 1993, and in his work for the major networks has dug up things that would turn your hair white.  If we do not wish to fear going to work every day because of the random suicide bombings that Israel suffers, we must be willing to face this threat head-on.

We cannot be afraid of accusations of being islamophobic.  We cannot question things we already have solid answers for.  And we cannot, under any circumstances, give an inch to anyone–not to the Muslims who seek to destroy us, nor the twoofers who are giving them that opportunity.

The 9/11 Truth Movement is extremely popular in Sharia nations in the Mideast.  It’s not because it’s the truth.  It’s because they know that it proves we don’t have the guts to fight back.  Everyone in America has the right to speak their minds, even these slimy, bottom-feeding lowlifes.  But do we really have to allow them airtime?  When they shout, shout back.  When they demand answers, give them.  The hardliners may never listen but the potentials certainly will.  If we can reach the impressionables first, we might have a future after all.

Comments (5)

Were There Bombs in the World Trade Center?

Sep 6, 08 8:07 PM

No.  As in my previous 9/11 twoofer post, it is quite easy to answer the “questions” being brought out by loose change.  The first piece of LC’s controlled demolition theory saw Dylan Avery and co. badly abusing firefighter’s descriptions of what they experienced that day.  It’s worth pointing out now that Lou Caccioli, the firefighter Avery quotes, has come out multiple times saying he believes the official story and never meant to add credence to the twoofer movement.  Here, Avery continues to misuse firefighter statements (halfway into this clip, it moves on to flight 93, which I’ve already covered):

The first thing that sticks out to me–after more blatant twisting of the way firefighters described what they saw and heard–is Avery claiming that the 1993 truck bombing of the WTC didn’t register on seismographs.  As a matter of fact, this is another patent lie.  It DID register.  In fact, Arthur Lerner-Lam, the man whose words Avery again takes out of context, had this to say: “there is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers.  That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context.”  I’d like Avery to explain how a seismograph picking up nitrate explosions in mines proves the controlled demolition theory.  What, pray tell, would you expect to happen when a 110-story skyscraper collapses to the ground?

Then, it comes out: Avery’s news articles are all directly from the American Free Press.  For those who are unaware, the American Free Press is not a legitimate news organization aligned with the AP (as if that would give it too much more credibility).  It’s an anti-gay, anti-Semitic, conspiracy-pushing rag that has not a single expert on its staff.  This little tidbit should put Avery’s “work” sharply into focus.

“Hotspots of literally molten steel” was never reported by Mark Loizeaux.  It was inexperienced contractors who said they saw molten steel; since they didn’t test the metal, you can’t come to that conclusion.  And I have to point out here that controlled demolition wouldn’t have melted steel, either, so it’s difficult to honestly follow Avery’s line of reasoning.  And yes, Dylan, I do think jet fuel played a major role in bringing down the towers.

NOW come the “squibs.”  Avery tries to tell us that detonating charges blew out of the building several floors below the collapse zone; unfortunately for him, there’s a more honest reality to this.  As the building collapsed, the air sealed inside was being compressed.  It had to go somewhere.  It took the path of least resistance, wich in this case was–you guessed it!–the windows.

It’s awful damn hard not to get really sarcastic at these points.  DUH.

And I’d really like to know why Avery points out that the camera tripod shakes before the collapse.  The camera seems to be quite a distance away…did someone bump the tripod?  Was it windy?  Where was the camera set up?  There are so many different explanations for this it’s just plain silly.

How DID the bombs get into the building, Dylan?  The explanation given by Loose Change doesn’t add up.  Here’s why: when Controlled Demolition, Inc. was asked to demolish a 32-story hotel in Chicago, it took a large team working for two weeks straight, without a day off, working 12- to 16-hour days to rig the building for demolition.  That’s less than one third the height of the WTC.  And in order to do this, they would have had to dismantle the area around the core–at the bottom of the building–and put it all back together.  Do you think this could possibly go unnoticed?  If they had a crew of two hundred, it would have taken well over a month to rig those towers the way they would have had to be rigged.  And they sure as hell wouldn’t have fallen the way they did, which was from the CRASH SITES, not the bottom of the building:

And the theory that Marvin Bush was “head of security” is absolutely hysterical.  Marvin, the brother of President Bush, was on the board of directors for Securacom.  He was NOT involved in heading the actual security for the WTC.  Even at that, his job with the board ended in June 2000, more than a year before the bomb-sniffing dogs were “abruptly removed.”  (The dogs were there in the first place because of phone threats, possibly made by the hijackers.)

The claim that Giuliani had the debris shipped to scrapyards overseas before it could be examined is also an outright lie.  Giuliani was a piss-ant; he couldn’t have ordered anything remotely like this as Avery claims.  In fact, FEMA was onsite immediately after the incident and NIST still has a large amount of debris.  A great deal of it, including a destroyed FDNY engine and a beam, is in a museum near the footprints of the WTC.  In the wake of 9/11, Giuliani couldn’t have blown his nose near that site without permission from FEMA.

What’s infuriating to me is that despite the very well-tested answers given to Avery and his twoof bwigade, they continue to spew the same rhetoric, distort the truth, and claim it’s the truth they’re after.  Not one credible expert has supported these nutball ideas.  Van Romero, also quoted by Loose Change, was very upset about being used.  What about Kevin Ryan, from Underwriters Laboratories?  First of all, UL didn’t certify the steel used to build the WTC, and they said so in a statement.  Second, Ryan didn’t work with steel; he worked in the water testing department.  He was fired after making a bogus statement about the incident, claiming that he had personal knowledge through his work at UL that proved the controlled demolition theory.  Ryan was fired–because, like all of us who work for major corporations, he was not authorized to make any statement, but he did so anyway.  And his statement was erroneous.

Here’s a video comparing the Chicago demolition and the collapse of the WTC:

The truth is out there.  They just don’t want to admit it.

Comments (14)

Hinting at Controlled Demolition

Sep 2, 08 7:56 PM

Loose Change is, by far, the undisputed leader of all twoofer theories.  It has been released and re-released three times.  In its “Final Cut,” they supposedly tie up all the loose ends and make their point perfectly.  Yeah, right.  Here’s part of their scenery about the twin towers:

This is about midway through the “film,” the section where they talk about the Twin Towers.  Dylan Avery, the writer, director and narrator, brings up “a witness” who saw “brief light sources” emitting from inside the building between floors 10 and 15.  Apparently there were about six of these flashes, accompanied by a “crackling” sound, before the South Tower collapsed.  First of all, who is this witness?  Did you talk to him?  Has he gone on record, or did you just get this from a news report?  Either way, if this was seen, it’s not proof of what you’re getting at–controlled demolition.

Then he brings up an audio recording made in a neighboring building.  The recording caught TWO explosions, not just one.  Then he goes on to a maintenance worker named Willie Rodriguez, who was in the sublevels of the North Tower when it was hit.  That has to be pretty solid, right?  I mean, he was there, wasn’t he?

That doesn’t mean his perspective is the Gospel truth.

Willie describes explosions happening all over the tower, an Aramark employee with burned skin hanging from his arms from a fireball that came from the elevator, all the while saying, “nobody has ever given me an explanation for all the explosions I heard that day.”  Avery immediately latches onto this and points out the lobby windows and marble panels being destroyed by the fireball that came down the elevator shafts.  He then says that the shafts were hermetically sealed.  His point is that it would have been impossible for the fire to travel down the shafts.

Maybe if it was just a fire, doofus, but there’s one glaring problem with this theory: A PLANE HIT THE BUILDING.  This opened a giant gaping hole and tore into the elevator shafts.

Then Avery does something absolutely vile.  He shows footage taken by somebody else of firefighters who survived talking about what they saw and heard.  Avery, from all we can tell, didn’t talk to these guys.  He likely didn’t ask to use their words.  He cuts and pastes the word “explosion” being used over and over.  He plays snippets–not whole recordings, just what he wants us to hear–of the radio transmissions of firefighters in the towers.  What’s absolutely infuriating to me is that Avery then plays a transmission from Chief Palmer, who wanted to put the fire out (naturally…it’s what firefighters do).  He goes on to say that if the 78th floor was such an inferno, Palmer wouldn’t have been able to get that far–or believed he could put it out.

Didja get that from all that firefighter training, Avery?  Oh, wait…you haven’t had any.

What Avery doesn’t know is that Palmer’s team wasn’t the only one up there.  That would be an absolutely silly idea.  He might have only seen two “isolated pockets of fire” from his view, but that’s where he was sent.  His job was to contain a certain area, and that’s what he was attempting to do.  They would have been working in coordination with other crews at other points set by the commanders on the ground.

Aside from this, Firefighter Louie Caccioli (along with other firefighters that twoofers have misquoted) have spoken out about how angry they are at being used for these ridiculous notions.  In fact, they have come out after the release of Loose Change to say that if there hadn’t been the sound of explosions (considering the trauma to the building, the dry fibers that were very flammable, and the way a fire can travel in compartments in a building that size), something would have been very wrong.  THEN you would’ve had cause to believe something was up.

I’ll move on tomorrow with the next clip.  So far, the twoofers are striking out.

Comments (1)

“It WAS A Missile! I SAW It!”

Aug 27, 08 12:38 PM

Trouble is, nobody has come forward to say such a thing.  Here’s another twoofer video claiming “proof” that it wasn’t a plane:

How is this proof, you ask?  Well, the poster, nineelevennews, states that this video proves that the witness who claimed to have seen the passenger’s faces in the plane that hit the Pentagon had to have been lying.  In this video, you can’t even see the windows on the plane.  In the description, the poster claims this as evidence that ALL of the witnesses were lying about what they saw.  Since only one witness claims to have seen the passenger’s faces, I fail to see how this video would discredit all of them.

After the murder of Philadelphia police officer Danny Faulkner, defense attorneys have attempted to discredit evidence against the murderer, Mumia Abu Jamal, by pointing out a “witness” to the crime.  William Singletary, a Vietnam vet and “local businessman,” has stated that he saw Mumia attempt to help Faulkner.  But Singletary said a lot of things that were false.  He swore up and down that Mumia wore a turban (he didn’t, he had dreadlocks), there was a police helicopter circling the area (Philly PD didn’t even own one until years after the shooting), Faulkner was shot in the face (impressive since Faulkner turned and shot Mumia as he was falling to the ground), and that he called for his children (Faulkner had no children).  All of this after he told officers on the scene that he hadn’t seen anything.

Yes, it is entirely possible for a “witness” to lie.  But is it not also possible that, in the case of the above video, the camera can’t focus the way the human eye can?  Man has yet to invent any camera that can capture the images the human eye is capable of.  We can see in darkness; cameras cannot.  We can focus on something distinct in an image or scene; a camera cannot.  It is possible that the witness lied, but it is also entirely possible that they did, in fact, focus on a few faces as the plane screamed past.

Nobody has come forward to say that they saw a missile.  Several different descriptions of the plane have been given, but the description of a silver American Airlines 757 is the most prevalent (because that’s what actually did hit the Pentagon).  Different people see different things, and we all remember things differently than others.  For instance, I once got into a fight with three girls outside a bar after another girl threw a bottle at me, missed and hit one of them.  One girl swore up and down that she saw me rear back and throw the bottle.  After the fight was dumped in the parking lot, and I was squaring off with three gangbangers who just wanted some violence, the man who screamed that he’d called the police swore he saw a man throw the bottle.  Were they lying?  Who knows.  Until I hear a person make statements that contradict previous ones, I don’t accuse them of lying.  It is more likely that the people in question merely saw something in passing and reacted to it.

Then again, in the world of 9/11 twooferism, the void is where their personal truth survives.  In the absence of concrete evidence is where their “proof” is found.  It only takes one question to make it reality for them.

Comments (1)

Question: How Does a 757 Disappear Into a 16-Foot Hole?

Aug 21, 08 7:08 PM

Answer: it doesn’t.  See for yourself.

Now that you’ve watched the video, here’s the kicker: the hole in the front wall of the Pentagon was not merely 16 feet in diameter.  This particular clip is patched together with a snippet from the now-famous crockumentary “Loose Change,” as well as pieces of a computer-simulated recreation of the crash from a History Channel piece on 9/11 conspiracy theories.  The maker, MikeHawkins, has several like it on his YouTube page. 

Before the collapse of the E ring after the crash, the hole in that ring was actually approximately 75-80 feet wide.  You can’t see it in the images in the video, because, guess what–the smoke and dust obscures the hole.  So where’d they get the 16-foot estimate?  From this image:

This is actually the funny part, because they admit this hole is 16 feet, too.  The theory, again, is that a missile hit the Pentagon, not a plane.  This was the last hole punched in the building, done on the C ring–and it was made not by the nose of the plane, but by the front landing gear, which was recovered just on the other side.

Another question: where are the wings?  Wouldn’t you see wing-like holes from a plane crashing into it?  Nope.  As I said previously, the impact would have sheared the wings off.  On a blast-resistant building like the Pentagon, the wings would not have created the cartoon-image hole that the twoofers say should exist.  This shot, in fact, shows proof that the wings DID do damage to the building:

Hey, they wanted answers.  Dylan Avery, the creator of Loose Change and the narrator you hear in the clip above, superimposes the computer-generated image of a 757 over a distant photo of the crash site while it was still on fire–and doesn’t even get the image over the hole!  Classic.

The windows next to the “hole” are next, and contrary to what the twoofers would have you believe, not all of them were completely intact.  Many of them were, and here’s why: they were designed by a glass company in Bessemer, Alabama, not far from one of the towns I lived in for a short time.  They were blastproof.  In other words, they were specifically designed to withstand a force beyond hurricane-force winds presented quite suddenly.  This was done after the Murrah building in Oklahoma City.

And the cable spools…oh, the spools.  It cracks me up that Avery can zoom in on those things, laying askew and quite obviously damaged in that shot, and seriously claim that they’re “untouched.”  Do they look untouched to you?

Some of the “questions” that they’re “demanding answers” for seem to be outright lies.  I’d like to be able to say that it’s just naivete, that they really just don’t understand how it would’ve worked, but they’re so adamant about defending themselves that, as Shakespeare wrote, “methinks thou doth protesteth too much.”

Comments (2)

Media Already Mischaracterizing the Plan for Withdrawal

Aug 21, 08 11:00 AM

Just a few hours later, the AP is now reporting that the withdrawal of troops may begin in June of next year. 

But what makes me chuckle is the opening statement of the article:

BAGHDAD – Iraq and the U.S. have reached preliminary agreement to withdraw American forces from Iraqi cities by next June, six years into the increasingly unpopular war

Uh, should that say “increasingly uncovered war?”

Next, it states:

The negotiations over a withdrawal timetable follow long insistence by President Bush that setting any schedule for U.S. troops to leave would be dangerous. The draft agreement with Iraq would link troop reductions to achievement of certain security milestones, although the details have not been made public.

What the hell does the media think is going to happen?  One day, we’re just going to send planes to gather them all up at once?  I do believe Bush stated – as was completely true – that setting a timetable BEFORE Iraq was on a clear path to success on its own, with their own military, would have been dangerous.

Amazingly, the media and liberals have lost concern for the troops and now have a new mission of their own: spend from now until November convincing Americans that this was a mission failed as opposed to a mission accomplished.

Comments (1)

Success Propelling Withdrawal

Aug 21, 08 9:12 AM

The AP reports this morning that Iraq and the United States are getting closer to an agreement to start setting a timetable and finally start bringing our guys home. 

This is after years of awesome work on behalf of our military and commander-in-chief. 

I remember the beginning and capturing a monster like Saddam Hussein alone seemed impossible yet we pulled it off.  Iraq has began re-building, writing its Constitution, has established a government, has held various elections where the people continue to show up in higher numbers everytime to take part in history – moving this once very-troubled and diseased country to a functioning democracy and a strong foothold for the United States so we may continue to monitor the terrorist evil happening around that region.

To all the naysayers, we couldn’t have done it without you.  As crazy as they drove us, we have to thank the naysayers because they exuded what happens in a great Democracy.  Iraq got to see first hand how people can co-exist in a functioning Democracy and completely disagree on one issue.  And contrary to liberal opinion, liberals got to create phony conspiracies about 9/11 (as covered wonderfully by Mel the last few days), call their President a terrorist, call the entire administration liars, and refrained from being fed through a wood-chipper!  Can you imagine what this did for the Iraqi people?  And even though it would have been a real hoot to watch just once, even the liberals’ hysteria about being hauled off to Guantanamo for dissenting from the President’s policies never materialized as well either. 

The only sad thing is that with violence down, the accomplishments made by our troops, the successful road our military is leaving Iraq in, this celebratory tone I fear will not make it to the hearts of our brave men and women who deserve it the most.  Now, we have a presidential election and suddenly the mainstream media doesn’t seem to care about Iraq anymore now that we have won.

Comments (1)

The Cruise Missile that Hit the Pentagon

Aug 18, 08 10:48 AM

I’m thinking I’m just going to do one post about the physics and mathematics of 9/11…I’m still trying to figure out a formula for ground resistance.  If anyone can help with that, it’d be appreciated.  ;-)

For now, I’m going to move on to theories about the Pentagon.  The most popular is that a cruise missile, not a Boeing 757, hit the pentagon.  The arguments may seem plausible.  However, deductive reasoning can quickly and easily prove them false.  Here’s one vid I found espousing the theory of the cruise missile:

One of the first people they quote is Steve Patterson, who lived in a condo not far from the Pentagon.  He said he saw what looked like a “silver commuter jet” fly past his window on the 14th floor.  What this guy doesn’t tell you is that Patterson himself admitted that the plane was moving so fast he couldn’t describe the markings on the plane later.  Patterson also stated that it looked like the plane could hold about 8 to 12 people.  The website he gets the quote from contains several other quotes, none of which add up.

Sgt. Maurice L. Bease said he saw a white commercial airliner from where he was in the Pentagon.  It came in so fast he didn’t have time to duck.  Mike Dobbs thought he saw a two-engine 737 from the upper level of the E-ring.  Levi Stephens reported what looked like a 747, heard two explosions and said later it sounded like it bounced off a heliport before it hit the building.  Alan Wallace described a white plane with orange and blue trim.  David Marra didn’t describe the craft, but said it clipped light poles and a wing skidded across the ground before impact.  Scott Cook said he didn’t understand how he and his roommate, a former Air Force serviceman, could have missed a 757 flying past their window.

So many different descriptions were given that it’s not hard to take just one and use it to say, “hey, we’ve got proof!  Nobody really saw it!”  One guy described a turbo prop plane.  Several, however, swear up and down that they saw the silver Boeing 757 and that they’ll never be able to forget how it looked.  Those were the people on the freeway who saw the plane coming and had time to wonder, “what the hell…?”

He then quotes witness Steve DeChiaro, who said, “my brain could not resolve the fact that it was a plane because it only seemed like a small hole in the building.  No tail, no wings no nothing.”  This is the crux of their argument, that because there were no wing holes and no immediate parts of the plane lying around, it is, to them, solid evidence that it wasn’t a plane. 

The ground doesn’t give nearly as much resistance as a reinforced concrete building.  Hani Hanjour had that plane going as fast as he could–more than 530 miles per hour–and it was carrying a full payload of nearly 5500 gallons of fuel.  When he hit that building, the wings broke and the plane continued forward even as it was disintegrating and burning.  The Laws of Physics explain that quite easily; the force of such a large, heavy object moving at that speed will continue forward in whichever form it is able to take.  In this case, it was in pieces.

What about the desks and books pointed out that didn’t appear to be so much as scorched?  I’ve said before, you would be amazed at what can survive an intense fire.  Flames will skip around and eat whatever they can, sometimes leaving objects practically untouched.  But it’s worth pointing out that the pictures given in the video don’t have a resolution that is nearly high enough to determine whether those objects really are scorched.

These twoofers just can’t win.

Comments (5)

Flight 93: “Don’t Bother Me With Facts”

Aug 13, 08 8:56 PM

I decided to work out the mathematical and physics answers to the questions posed, but since math has always been my worst subject (and I’m a science whiz–go figure), I’m still working on it.  Until I get that done, here’s an answer to those who are still asking the same questions that have already been faced:

Mucho kudos to RKOwens4 for the work on that vid.  (I was having problems with this computer reading the images I wanted to post, so I just caved in and posted the video–it has most of the images I have anyway.)

And I have to answer Simon’s assertion that there was no jet fuel, no fire, and that no wreckage, blood or human remains were found.  The images in the above video have been passed around constantly since the Moussoui trial; they show the wreckage found and what little remained.  Yes, some passengers’ drivers licenses were found, though few were as discernable as the ones in the video.  Yes, some paper survived, including the flight log handwritten by the pilot of N591UA (the plane that was Flight 93), slightly charred and soaked in–gasp!–water and jet fuel. 

For those who don’t know, I’m training to become a firefighter.  I’m studying fire science, and it is amazing what can survive an intense fire.  I’ve seen pictures of people who survived flash fires, with the pockets on their clothes burned away and the contents of the pockets practically untouched.  Families will sift through gutted homes and find the most odd objects have survived–pictures, notebooks, that sort of thing.  A traumatic crash and explosion will not destroy everything on a plane.  Ask any seasoned firefighter or investigator and they’ll tell you that with fire, anything is possible.

So yes, it is probable that these objects did, in fact, survive and were not “planted” as the twoofers might suggest.  And Simon…what’s most sickening to me is that there are so many thousands of people in America like you who claim to be asking questions and demanding answers for the sake of the victims, when it is your refusal to accept the truth that is hurting the surviving victims the most.  Claiming that CeeCee Lyles’ call to her husband from Flight 93 was faked was the most nauseating thing of all.

We’ve long talked about the 800-pound gorilla in the room that nobody wants to acknowledge.  Now we’ve got people pointing it out, but many have moved to refusing to believe what’s standing right in front of them.

Comments (7)

I Didn’t SEE a 757, Therefore it Didn’t Crash

Aug 12, 08 9:53 PM

Here’s another theory about Flight 93: that it was actually shot down.  Several witnesses have said they saw a small white plane in the area just after the crash, and one even says she saw it about a minute before the crash.  Here’s Susan McElwain, another of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists’ “smoking guns”:

If you google her name, you’ll come up with nearly 100 webpages dedicated to her story as one of the single greatest pieces of evidence that 9/11 was a hoax.  The headlines and exerpts say pretty much the same thing: “Susan McElwain saw hard evidence that proved the government story wrong, and the government covered it up!”  McElwain is one person, and her story is often intertwined with other stories that claim Flight 93 never crashed in Shanksville.  What about all the other witnesses?

Eric Peterson and Lee Purbaugh were working at an auto shop that morning when they heard a loud, whistling whine and looked up to see the 757 passenger jet so close that, according to them, “you could count the rivets.”  The plane crashed so hard and so fast that the shock wave blew the windows out of a nearby farmhouse.  Both ran to the crash site and saw a huge burning crater surrounded by all kinds of debris–seat cushions, pieces of clothing, and parts of the plane (which, according to the conspiracy theorists, was never found.  Whoops!).

Tom Fritz was sitting on his porch a quarter mile from the crash site and said that the plane suddenly flipped and dropped “like a stone.”  Students at nearby Stony Creek High School said the crash made the whole campus shake violently.  Anna McBride watched the 757 flip, nosedive and crash through her kitchen window.  72-year-old John Walsh also raced to the crash site and saw the same debris and burning crater that other witnesses saw.  Viola Saylor, Joe Wilt, Karl Landis, Rick King, Bruce Grine–all reported the same things.

Most of them also reported seeing the white jet in the area.

Susan McElwain swears up and down that she didn’t see a 757.  She says that she saw a small white jet flying low, and later saw the gigantic fireball that was Flight 93 crashing.  The plane was small, white, with no discernable markings, was moving fast and making little noise.  The answer has been given so often that it astounds me that it’s been ignored.  Pilot Yates Gladwell was flying a Dassault Falcon 20 for VF Corp employees that day when he suddenly received the order to land the plane–no explanation, just go to the nearest airport and land.  As he was in a landing pattern near 3000 feet, he got another call: the FAA has lost a plane and you’re the closest.  Can you go look for it?

He did, and circled for some time.  At first he couldn’t see the plane, and was about to leave–then it crashed and he couldn’t miss it.  Gladwell was an important part of the inital disaster relief effort.  He helped direct workers to the site.

Did Susan McElwain make it up?  Did she really see what she claims?  One eyewitness to the Pentagon attack said he saw a helicopter disappear behind the walls immediately before the massive explosion, but no helicopter crashed or was involved in the explosion.  Depending on where you are in regards to the direction everything else is moving, what you see can play tricks on you.  It’s common for witness identification at trial to be sketchy, even if the witness swears that they know who they saw at the crime scene; that’s because often people don’t always realize what they saw.  There are times when I wish I had that problem.

At any rate, I am not for one second calling McElwain a liar.  She likely did see the low-flying white plane just like everyone else.  Where she was in relation to where everything else was makes all the difference, and that hasn’t been taken into account.  It’s the conspiracy theorists (Alex Jones and Dylan Avery, please take note) who take things like this and make them more than they really are.

But what about her assertion that the plane had a “military look?”  This was what she saw:

It might actually be easy to call this a military-style jet, especially if you don’t know much about military planes.  Saying “I know it was a military plane, it just had that look” doesn’t convince me.  And saying, “I haven’t been able to find a plane like that on the internet” doesn’t do it, either–there are so many different kinds of planes out there that you have to know aviation terminology to find what you saw. 

The problem here is that nobody, not even Susan McElwain, is willing to admit that they might very well be mistaken in their assumptions.  None of this is anywhere near as conclusive as the twoofers claim; in fact, it’s more damaging to the cause.  Next!

Comments (11)
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 347 other followers