Posted on 03/22/2002 8:36:49 AM PST by ppaul
"Hunt the Boeing!" is a provocative display of smoke and mirrors, but there's little else to recommend the site. Its authors present a fraction of the available evidence in a highly selective, distorted, titillating way, proving absolutely nothing — except, perhaps, that there's always room for another conspiracy theory.While making few explicit allegations, the authors argue, in effect, that based on photographic and physical evidence, the damage to the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 could not have been caused by a crashing jetliner, contrary to the official and overwhelmingly accepted explanation.
The argument is weak. For starters, it conveniently ignores much of the existing evidence, for example:
Eyewitness testimony of bystanders who saw and/or heard American Airlines Flight 77 approach and collide with the Pentagon
The recovery of both black boxes belonging to the Boeing 757 from the Pentagon wreckage
The recovery and identification of the remains in the crash site of all but one of the people known to be aboard Flight 77
Of course, the evasion of bedrock evidence is standard fare for conspiracy theorists. If pressed, they would doubtless claim that all the above must have been planted or manufactured. But they can't even prove such a claim plausible, let alone true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Eschewing the plain facts, they ask us to focus instead on misleadingly posed condundrums such as the following:
Question: "Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?"
Answer: It didn't only damage the outside. Structural damage extended at least 150 feet inside, well into the third ("C") ring of the building.
Question: "Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?"
Answer: It didn't just crash into the ground floor. According to official statements and news reports, it took out both the first and second floors on impact.
Question: "Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?"
Answer: No, but other photographs exist showing debris that likely came from the jetliner. Bear in mind, eyewitnesses say the Boeing 757 all but disintegrated when it struck the reinforced wall of the building. The assumption that aircraft fragments ought to be plainly visible in front of the Pentagon isn't necessarily justified. Still, one visitor to the crash site a few days after the attack, Representative Judy Biggert of Illinois, told reporters she did see remnants of an aircraft. "There was a seat from a plane," she said, "there was part of the tail and then there was a part of green metal, I could not tell what it was, a part of the outside of the plane." (Chicago Sun-Times, 16 Sep, 2001)
(For a more detailed consideration of these and other "Hunt the Boeing" puzzles, please read the excellent commentary by engineer Paul Boutin and astrophysicist Patrick Di Justo, Web-posted on May 14.)
You're no doubt wondering who's behind these flights of fancy and what exactly they're driving at. According to the French newspaper Le Monde, the culprit is Thierry Meyssan, well-known leftist radical and president of the Voltaire Network, a controversial site devoted to "the fight for freedom and secularity." His son, Raphaël Meyssan, is credited as the Webmaster of both the Voltaire Network and Utopian Asylum, which, uncoincidentally, hosts "Hunt the Boeing!"
What are they trying to prove? That the attacks of September 11 were perpetrated not by foreign terrorists, but by the U.S. government upon its own citizens — a conspiracy theory in the grand tradition.
To quote the late Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." We're still waiting for the goods.
"Hunt the Boeing!" is a provocative display of smoke and mirrors, but there's little else to recommend the site. Its authors present a fraction of the available evidence in a highly selective, distorted, titillating way, proving absolutely nothing — except, perhaps, that there's always room for another conspiracy theory.
While making few explicit allegations, the authors argue, in effect, that based on photographic and physical evidence, the damage to the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 could not have been caused by a crashing jetliner, contrary to the official and overwhelmingly accepted explanation.
The argument is weak. For starters, it conveniently ignores much of the existing evidence, for example:
Eyewitness testimony of bystanders who saw and/or heard American Airlines Flight 77 approach and collide with the Pentagon
The recovery of both black boxes belonging to the Boeing 757 from the Pentagon wreckage
The recovery and identification of the remains in the crash site of all but one of the people known to be aboard Flight 77 Of course, the evasion of bedrock evidence is standard fare for conspiracy theorists. If pressed, they would doubtless claim that all the above must have been planted or manufactured. But they can't even prove such a claim plausible, let alone true beyond a reasonable doubt.
Eschewing the plain facts, they ask us to focus instead on misleadingly posed condundrums such as the following:
Question: "Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?" Answer: It didn't only damage the outside. Structural damage extended at least 150 feet inside, well into the third ("C") ring of the building.
Question: "Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?" Answer: It didn't just crash into the ground floor. According to official statements and news reports, it took out both the first and second floors on impact.
Question: "Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?" Answer: No, but other photographs exist showing debris that likely came from the jetliner. Bear in mind, eyewitnesses say the Boeing 757 all but disintegrated when it struck the reinforced wall of the building. The assumption that aircraft fragments ought to be plainly visible in front of the Pentagon isn't necessarily justified. Still, one visitor to the crash site a few days after the attack, Representative Judy Biggert of Illinois, told reporters she did see remnants of an aircraft. "There was a seat from a plane," she said, "there was part of the tail and then there was a part of green metal, I could not tell what it was, a part of the outside of the plane." (Chicago Sun-Times, 16 Sep, 2001)
(For a more detailed consideration of these and other "Hunt the Boeing" puzzles, please read the excellent commentary by engineer Paul Boutin and astrophysicist Patrick Di Justo, Web-posted on May 14.)
You're no doubt wondering who's behind these flights of fancy and what exactly they're driving at. According to the French newspaper Le Monde, the culprit is Thierry Meyssan, well-known leftist radical and president of the Voltaire Network, a controversial site devoted to "the fight for freedom and secularity." His son, Raphaël Meyssan, is credited as the Webmaster of both the Voltaire Network and Utopian Asylum, which, uncoincidentally, hosts "Hunt the Boeing!"
What are they trying to prove? That the attacks of September 11 were perpetrated not by foreign terrorists, but by the U.S. government upon its own citizens — a conspiracy theory in the grand tradition.
To quote the late Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." We're still waiting for the goods.
For the rest of the article
and some links to good sites and references, click HERE.
:
Too bad there are so many crazy people around these days.
Too bad so many of them post on FR. Kinda gives the place a low-rent feeling.
They probably did. It wasn't a TV camera, it was a security camera. It probably didn't take 30 frames a second.
Consider the source, eh?
I agree. I think it is a serious problem for this site and the powers that be should take it seriously.
Take an aluminum can.
Fill it with jet fuel.
Seal it up.
Shoot out of end of potato gun at brick wall, 25 yards away.
Do you notice the nice, orange and blue flames as the can melts into a puddle of molt?
Secondly, just because the max airspeed of a 757 is around 250, that is not considering velocity gained by a plunge in altitude of 4 to 5 thousand feet, in a short amount of time.
Almost all the conspiracy theories out there come from the left. It is so amazing and frustrationg to see these leftist drug addled 60's conspiracy theories posted here all over the place by people who think they are conservative.
It's also very bad that this sort of thought has crept so strongly in to standard mainstream worldview for many Americans.
Especially recently. We need a five-day waiting period on posting rights for newbies...
That was part of the brain-washing technique used by the government shill that posted this. It helps people buy into the cover story when they read it twice.
As already pointed out, it was a security camera. Security cameras often only take a few frames a second. Since the plane was tavelling fast it is not suprising at all that there is no clear shot of it.
At the time the reports indicated the plane hit the ground next to the building. In the first frame you can see something on the ground before the explosion.
It flew over DC, and over a highway, in the morning on a workday. Numerous people saw the plane.
It makes no sense to give any credence to this ridiculous conspiracy story. There is no evidence there, and it's just dumb. Anybody that does needs to really work on not believing all the crap you can find on the internet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.