You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #6: I'm sorry... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
paulthompson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-17-05 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I'm sorry...
Edited on Sun Apr-17-05 02:46 PM by paulthompson
I normally agree with you, but I find this argument extremely implausible and resting on the thinnest shreds of evidence. Jim Stop at the marina was three miles from the crash site, not six, as probably most of the Indian Lake witnesses were, since the lake is between the town of Indian Lake and the crash site. It would take the plane 30 seconds to travel from him to the crash site, less if it was going closer to 600 mph, as some say. Is this "seconds later"? Yes, it is. Where is the treeline? I don't know - who does? Could the northwest witnesses have seen the plane turn BEFORE the treeline? Yes. In fact, that's what at least two of them saw. The idea of a U-turn is a construct of the authors of that article. If the plane was a couple of miles further to the east, which is just as plausible from eyewitness accounts as where they chose to draw the line, it would have been a right turn (consistent with eyewitness accounts), not a U-turn.

>But wouldn't have Jim Stop mentioned the curious fact that he saw a plane crossing the Indian Lake going east (AWAY from the crash site) and ANOTHER plane was crashing west of Indian Lake. The same goes for witnesses inside Indian Lake Marina.

I have no idea what you're talking about - you're putting ideas into his head. He might just have heard a loud roar and not gotten a good bead on where it was going or where it was coming from, or he just happened not to have mention the direction, clouds in the area, sun in his eyes, or all sorts of things. Eyewitess accounts are frequently inaccurate in any case, whereas in the first posting, the most logical account is dismissed based on one witness, when it fact what he saw in no way suggests two planes. The postulation of two planes is an incredible claim that requires incredible evidence to back it up, and I don't see it.

If there were two planes, there would have been eyewitness accounts of one of them leaving the area, or another crash site, or something. Use Occam's Razor - the two plane idea makes no sense. I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

What's sad to me is that by focusing on this very dubious theory, the important questions about the crash are ignored. If you're in contact with the authors of that essay, tell them to turn their research focus to questions of what was happening to Flight 93 before it crashed, and can all its strange behavior be explained as a cockpit struggle or not, plus the small white jet, and other significant phenomena. I agree the raining debris is important, but in no way does it necessitate the existence of two planes!

By the way, the wind most definitely could have been responsible for the debris found at New Baltimore, all of which appears to be paper debris. The timing is extremely vague, and people can make mountains out of poorly worded reporting or poorly worded witness accounts. All we know is that for hours after the crash, people were picking up paper debris in New Baltimore. Do we know exactly when they started? No. If there's an eyewitness who clearly states "I was picking up debris within X minutes of hearing the crash," or something to that effect, then one can start looking into that seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC