Is it all just conspiracy wingnuts?

[angledge]

Yesterday I spoke to a man who spent 20 years as an aviation accident investigator for the US Navy. He then joined EPA, where he works as an On Scene Coordinator. He was one of the first people to respond to the Pentagon on 9/11 - he got to the building just in time to be turned away by the Pentagon police, who said they thought another plane was headed for the building.

According to this guy - an eminently knowledgeable eyewitness - there is no way a plane hit the Pentagon. He said he did not see a single piece of an airplane anywhere. The damage was all wrong - the hole in the Pentagon shows no damage from wings, for instance. The fact that two lightpoles right in front of the building are still standing is impossible, according to him. Of course, there is an enormous amount of controversy surrounding this. There are internet sites that list eyewitness accounts of the plane hitting the building. There were two cell phone calls made by passengers on the plane, one of which specifically stated that the plane had been hijacked by six individuals.

Other points he brought up:

• Why was there never an FAA/NTSB/FBI investigation of any of the four planes that crashed? You know, the exercises we're all somewhat familiar with where they comb the crash site for every last piece of wreckage & then re-assemble the plane in a warehouse, checking the parts number on every piece & exhaustively considering every shred of physical evidence?
  
• Modern aircraft have ground-linked telemetry of almost all cockpit instrumentation. Why wasn't it immediately obvious that these planes had been hijacked?

My question: supposedly the Pentagon was hit by American Airlines Flight 77. If that plane never hit the Pentagon, where is it? What happened to the 64 people who were onboard?

I don't know what to think of all this. The guy I spoke to sounded very knowledgeable, but there are experts on both sides of the debate. How to sort through all the information?

Comments

[captainsblog.livejournal.com]

I posted about a documentary on this very subject a week or so ago.

It's called Loose Change, and while it doesn't answer the questions (and some questions have been raised about its own documentary integrity), the questions are definitely worth thinking about-

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194

[angledge.livejournal.com]

Yeah, my housemate funkyplaid told me about Loose Change. I don't know how much I trust documentaries - there's ALWAYS an agenda.

[thepikey.livejournal.com]

And they upped the scariness points in a big way by talking about how some agencies had planned a fake attack on Guantanamo to give us an excuse to invade Cuba and take down Castro in the 60's...

[chaosvizier.livejournal.com]

Cutting off in the middle of a sentence like that is beautiful. Like the spooks caught you before you wrote any more "truths". Hee hee.

[angledge.livejournal.com]

I'm just that sleepy.

[thereject.livejournal.com]

Well I don't know about airplane-hole forensics, but if I recall correctly it was obvious for some amount of time that the planes had been hijacked. The thing is, this was the first time this type of thing had ever happened, so I don't think the right people pieced together what four hijacked planes at once really meant.

Also, I would imagine that part of the reason they didn't do exhaustive re-piecing of the plane is because they knew what happened. The reason they do that is to determine the cause of crashes, whether mechanical or human in nature. In this one, it was pretty obvious.

[angledge.livejournal.com]

But it is my understanding that the NTSB does one of those investigations every time, no matter how obvious a crash's cause appears to be.

[love2loveher.livejournal.com]

I just recently heard about this particular conspiracy theory. No idea what I think. Haven't they had the black box recordings?

Think I'm safe to be talking about this on a DHS computer? *looks around anxiously*

[angledge.livejournal.com]

What makes you think you have privacy to discuss such things anywhere? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-11-nsa-reax_x.htm)

[love2loveher.livejournal.com]

true. might as well talk about it here.

It makes me sick that most people probably see that article - and think "Oh well, I'm not a terrorist, they aren't tapping *my* calls"

But they don't know that The Secret Service Reads LJ

[marasca.livejournal.com]

According to that article, "the program doesn't involve monitoring the content of telephone conversations" and also doesn't include the names or addresses associated with the numbers (though those could be looked up). I dunno... I mean, I'm certainly not apt to trust the Bush administration. The lack of oversite, etc is disturbing because it makes me wonder what other, more dangerous secret programs are going on that we haven't found out about yet. I'd certainly believe that they would use this data for things other than tracking terrorism, like trying to track drug deals or something. But for the bulk of the population who live more-or-less legal lives, a little sodomy or speeding aside (which one couldn't pick up on through simple phone numbers without recordings of the conversations).... I don't see what the problem is? Or at least I don't see why I, personally, would worry that the secret service was going to knock on my door.

[angledge.livejournal.com]

I worry about it because, if I only worry about it when I *do* have something to hide, it will be too late. What if they decide to check up on who's been calling Planned Parenthood? Utne Reader? The ACLU? There are plenty of ways that database could be data-mined to make lists of "potential enemies".

But more fundamentally than that, it offends me that this administration has unilaterally decided that I don't need the rights to privacy that I've always enjoyed. How dare they?

[karstyl.livejournal.com]

I have seen this a few time before, my opinion is about 50/50 yes/no.

On no plane side I have seen pictures with no plane parts and analysis of the whole and the size of the plane that supposedly hit. And the lack of a black box. I also don’t intrinsically trust the government, historically most(all?) governments are corrupt so the chance of this one being otherwise is almost nil. Also having them put the story out on the conspiracy sites is a sure way to make sure it is ridiculed.

On the pro plane side is the fact that I could easily remove plane parts from a photo to put on a web site, there are some eyewitnesses that saw a plane in the vicinity that day, there have been very few real-world tests of what a big plane crashing into a big building would look like and what debris it would leave behind. And the fact that at least two other planes hit buildings that day. Which could also go to the no-plane argument, if there was a plan to fake an attack on a military target it was a good time to do so and have it believed.

Of course it could be Cthulhu, I remember the Illuminatus Trilogy, they might have been keeping people out of the area so they could redraw the line, or so they did not get eaten by the beast that escaped. Of course I think they were a bit slow and it took over the minds of the country already, blindfolded the people with flags. Explains so much.

[krick.livejournal.com]

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

[etumukutenyak.livejournal.com]

Well, we had eyewitnesses on the highway watching the plane go into the Pentagon. I don't know if you realize this, but the highway goes right by the building (albeit on the far side of the humongous parking lot). There were many credible witnesses to the plane hitting the building, plus a bit of security camera shots that captured the final moments.

Yes, NTSB does generally piece together each plane, but I think in this case they had a preponderance of other information to guide their final decision.

They did know the planes had been hijacked..I think there's been some obfuscation over the critical details on this, to prevent other future hijackers from turning off or otherwise futzing equipment.

I think most conspiracy theorists are more paranoid than anything else. I'd be suspicious of someone who says he was turned away from the Pentagon on that day; there were first responders all over the place and all the military/naval personnel who had been in the building as well. It was what they call a MASCAL event, and everyone was running around for hours. Not only were they responding to the crash and fire, but a lot of other people were also stuck in traffic out of DC. It was a huge mess that day. I don't think the Pentagon police were turning away responders that successfully (they were indeed worrying about another plane though).

It was a sad enough day without adding conspiracies to it. What's the motive for a conspiracy in this, anyway?

Thank you for your comments.

[angledge.livejournal.com]

First off, let me say that I am not a conspiracy theorist. I was just intrigued/concerned by this one individual's level of certainty that all is not as it seems re: 9/11.

The motive for the conspiracy is usually put forth that the current administration wanted an excuse to start the war on terror.

Re: Thank you for your comments.

[etumukutenyak.livejournal.com]

I didn't think you were a conspiracy theorist, and I do agree that some folks have managed to put together a narrative that seems to fit the available information. I looked at the video referenced above. If I didn't live in the DC area, I would have been more likely to believe the comments made in the video. The video even had some clips from the security cameras I mentioned.

I am just too sceptical of human competence in general to ever really believe in conspiracies. Even the Cosa Nostra, specialists in secrets and crime, could't keep their mouths shut, after all. Isn't it human nature to boast of accomplishments?

The War on Terror -- I guess that's as good a reason to think of conspiracies to begin with. After all, the administration was quick enough to shift from Afghanistan to Iraq, dropping Osama for Saddam.

Sorry to have bothered you in the first place.

Re: Thank you for your comments.

[angledge.livejournal.com]

No bother at all! I always appreciate thoughtful commentaries on my (occasional) thoughtful posts. God knows, the normal crowd around here is more likely to throw cream pies.

(Ooooh, but I love them all too. Yes I do. Each & every one of them.)

Re: Thank you for your comments.

[etumukutenyak.livejournal.com]

I was a little grouchy yesterday, so I was afraid I'd come across too cranky. I'll be happy to join the cream pie crowd though. Do you prefer coconut cream or bananananananana cream?

Re: Thank you for your comments.

[angledge.livejournal.com]

I am just too sceptical of human competence in general to ever really believe in conspiracies. Even the Cosa Nostra, specialists in secrets and crime, could't keep their mouths shut, after all. Isn't it human nature to boast of accomplishments?

Yep. This is one of my biggest counter-arguments to 9/11 conspiracies - five years later & NO-ONE has leaked a word about this huge conspiracy?

Re: Thank you for your comments.

[etumukutenyak.livejournal.com]

Oh, and about the lack of plane parts? That everybody talks about? Here's my thought: How about Shanksville? I mean, no one saw the plane hit the ground. They saw it fly by real fast, and then heard a boom, saw the smoke..and there's nothing but a hole in the ground. It's not even an airplane-sized hole. There's no body parts and no plane parts. :-)

[(Anonymous)]

If you get a chance, listen to lieslieslies on Ministry's new album Rio Grande Blood. Apparently, Al believes in the missile/WTC theory.

The last 2 Ministry releases, Houses of the Mole and Rio Grande Blood make Psalm 69 seem like a Gin Blossoms album.

Mr Jorgensen really doesn't like W


Weed Weasel