Is it all just conspiracy wingnuts?
May. 12th, 2006 12:28 pmYesterday 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:
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?
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?
no subject
Date: 2006-05-15 10:25 pm (UTC)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.
Date: 2006-05-16 12:54 am (UTC)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.
Date: 2006-05-16 01:17 am (UTC)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.
Date: 2006-05-16 01:19 am (UTC)(Ooooh, but I love them all too. Yes I do. Each & every one of them.)
Re: Thank you for your comments.
Date: 2006-05-16 06:38 pm (UTC)Re: Thank you for your comments.
Date: 2006-05-16 01:20 am (UTC)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.
Date: 2006-05-16 06:36 pm (UTC)