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

Reply #10: reply [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 Mon Apr-18-05 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. reply
>Why, dear Paul, are you always so kean to decide ("to me ...") which version is right and which is wrong ? Why dont you, why dont we just acknowledge that there are two versions (at least) existing ?

I would hardly say that I am "always so keen to decide which version is right and which is wrong." As a matter of fact I very rarely diss other people's ideas or theories at this forum, whereas you often make very critical comments about other people's ideas or theories. And you should - that's your right. Why can't I?

The reason why I am making an exception to my usual practice is because I think this two planes idea is very detrimental to figuring out what happened to Flight 93. It muddies the waters. Certain things I will dismiss because I find them so completely inplausible that they serve no useful research purpose and only muddy the waters. One example of this is the idea that no planes hit the WTC, but they were holograms instead.

Yes, there is a lot of good research involved here, yes, it brings up many good issues such as debris fields. But the suggestion that this could imply two planes is so at odds with all the facts brought up that it leaves me speechless. It's akin to noting that there is a whole range of claimed times for when the planes hit the Pentagon, thus a whole bunch of planes must have hit it, one after the other. Yes, the confusion about the times is a good point, but the explanation is completely non-logical, because if a whole bunch of planes would have hit the Pentagon many other things would have to be true that we know aren't true.

In the same way, a whole bunch of extremely implausible things would have to be true for this second plane idea to be true. Where did the plane come from? Where did it go? Where was its radar tracking? Where were the eyewitnesses of it before or after Indian Lake? What would its purpose be? It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense, in my opinion.

The Indian Lake witnesses were extremely vague in their descriptions. None that I see quoted give any timings or any directions. Yet the essay concludes: "Several people witnessed a plane coming in from the east just before the crash happened." Why east??? Show me one of these witnesses who claims it came from the east. It could have been coming or going to any direction, from their descriptions. Furthermore, eyewitnesses often get things wrong. Certainly some of the eyewitnesses here had misimpressions, were misquoted, and so forth, yet their accounts are being treated as gospel. It could have seemed like it was overhead when it was two miles away, and so on. If I were sitting on a boat in a lake in some rural location and saw a jet plane flying low and pass by just two miles away, I would probably say something to the effect that it practically flew right over me. A controversy is being made here where there is none.

You say that there are people in Indian Lake who saw a different plane
at the same time as the people seeing one coming in from the northwest. Who's to say these plane sightings happened at different times? Or, who's to say these people didn't see the same plane at the same time, from different angles? If you look at Jim Sharp and such witnesses, they're only three miles from the crash site! This is very hilly terrain and there's bound to be much confusion as one person sees the plane disappear over one ridge and other person sees it disappear over another. By some accounts, the plane was at about 2000 feet altitude just before it crashed. So many people from many miles away in many directions would have seen the plane just before it crashed.

You say:

>It sounds like hijackers being in Afghanistan an Hamburg in the same time, being in Boston and Florida in the sme time and so on.

If I see multiple accounts, of say, Atta being in Boston and Florida on the same day or days, that to me is significant evidence pointing to two Attas. But what if someone said, "On Sept. 7, Atta was seen in Miami, and then on the same day, three miles away, also in Miami? Aha! There must be two Attas!" I would say that person can't be serious to conclude that means evidence for two Attas, because one Atta could have easily been in both places that day. It's the same here. If Indian Lake were say, twenty miles away and the eyewitness timing could be pinpointed better to be proven to conflict, then one might postulate a second plane. But Jim Sharp was three miles away, and we know the plane was making a sharp right turn from two other witnesses! There's no two planes mystery.

Everyone of course is entitled to their opinion, but frankly, personally I'm surprised that people I respect here such as yourself and John Doe would formulate or seriously contemplate a second plane hypothesis when a single plane can easily explain all the eyewitness accounts. And by failing to mention the two eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the plane make a sharp right turn, the authors cherrypicked only the evidence that was to their liking. That is very disappointing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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