Thursday, March 14, 2002

Pentagon crash eyewitnesses: People are saying that it is odd that the hole in the Pentagon isn't big enough for the plane and that it is odd that more fire damage didn't result and that it is odd that there is only one video of the crash and that it is odd that this video shows the explosion but no plane and that it is odd that there is no debris and that it is odd that light standards that should have been hit by the plane appear to be standing after the explosion and that it is odd that the Pentagon is not protected by anti-aircraft weapons and that it is odd that the U. S. military had 40 minutes to intercept a hijacked plane bearing in on the seats of government of the U. S. but apparently did nothing. It is odd, they say, so odd, but what about the eyewitnesses? Ah, yes, the eyewitnesses. One apparently saw a helicopter crash into the Pentagon, one says he saw a small commuter jet crash into the Pentagon, one says he saw a 'cruise missile with wings' crash into the Pentagon. I'm waiting for the one who says he saw a flying yellow submarine. Most say they saw a plane fly low overhead, followed immediately by the sound of an explosion (which is just what you'd expect if the crash were faked - they'd fly a plane low to the ground and pass it right over the Pentagon, followed immediately by the explosion). A few of the reports very explicitly say they saw an American Airlines plane and followed it by eye right into the Pentagon. While such reports are compelling, you have to remember: 1) eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and people can and do imagine what they think they must have seen in light of what they believed happened; and 2) if the Pentagon bombing were an inside job, you can be sure that fake eyewitnesses would be provided as part of the plot. What I find odd is the naivete and innocence that Americans have about their government - they really want to believe.

0 comments: