Monday, May 08, 2006

It Was A Military Plane

I have already posted how the filmmakers change quotes and take them out of context to change their meaning. Here is another example:

Danielle O'Brien, an Air Traffic Controller at Dulles International Airport, told ABC News that everybody in the control room thought that Flight 77 was a military plane.













If you look up what she actually told ABC News though, you get a different story (emphasis mine).

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."



She wasn't saying that it was impossible to fly a civilian plane in that manner, but that it would be unsafe to do so. As someone who has flown on military cargo aircraft, believe me, they can turn the things much faster then commercial airliners do. They don't because they don't want the passengers freaking out, losing their lunch, and getting hit in the head with the service carts. Somehow I doubt the hijackers had the passengers safety and comfort on their minds. By leaving off the last part of the quote they completely change its meaning. Incompetence, or deception? You tell me.

12 Comments:

At 08 May, 2006 21:44, Blogger Ray Jenkins said...

Kool I'm gonna go watch Loose Change right now. You do a good job at promoting it.

 
At 09 May, 2006 17:21, Blogger Swim said...

James...what she SAID was that the STYLE in which the plane was flying was CHARACTERISTIC of a military plane. Which is how MILITARY pilots are trained. Anyone who learned to fly at a CIVILIAN aviation school would NOT learn such manuevers. I was in the Air Force, I flew with pilots, and their training is significantly DIFFERENT than civilian pilots. There is no way a barely-trained pilot could pull off THAT kind of flying...sheesh..I'm HOPE you're still in school...Try taking some 'critical thinking' courses.

 
At 10 May, 2006 08:51, Blogger James B. said...

Yes, because it is "unsafe" to fly a civilian plane like that, not because it is impossible. Somehow I doubt a terrorist on a suicide mission is too concerned about SOP.

 
At 10 May, 2006 13:10, Blogger shawn said...

Man swim, you ever heard of the pot calling the kettle black?

Anyone who buys into these theories need to learn the meaning of critical thinking.

 
At 13 June, 2006 15:52, Blogger sacredkreed said...

Exactly, I appreciate your work here, because I don't want to believe Loose Change. I really don't.... And I don't think anyone that does likes the idea at all!
Here you have a poorly-trained (if trained at all) "Pilot" in Hani Hanjour performing skilled military manuevers?
Ya, right... And none the less, you have so many inconsistencies in the "official version" and an apparent cover-up in so many different ways. Can you blame any of us for asking the questions. I plan on reading every point in this website and I hope you can prove the whole theory wrong...
If this is the best you can do, then I feel saddened for the state of the US Constitution (the REAL government that we should uphold).

 
At 27 September, 2006 11:46, Blogger jack rabbit said...

Asking questions about things that don't seem to add up is not 'buying into' anything - it is Socratic.

Watch this animation of the final flight to the Pentagon:

http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=16&st=0&#last

Visit my blog here:
http://americanjourney.blogspot.com/

 
At 03 October, 2006 09:42, Blogger Delta Blues said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 03 October, 2006 09:49, Blogger Delta Blues said...

*deleted previous comments. still getting the hang of this blog.*

so far, i think that this site is the best counter-point to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. i think the film "Loose Change" has some good points, but also some glaring mistakes and obvious manipulation of the facts. There are alot of interesting questions to be asked about the circumstances of the September 11th attacks, and i think it is our responsibility to question what we are told by an obviously corrupt government and a media with a questionable agenda. The campaign of misinformation surrounding our police action in Iraq is only one example of why anyone of any intellegence would need to question the current administration. Accepting what the national news programs tell us is naive, there are thousands of government sponsered propaghanda broadcasts that are past off as real news. This leads us to question what we are told and, as good citizens, attempt to find alternate news sources, such as "Loose Change."

But unfortunately, it is another Micheal-Moore-Not-Ken-Burns example of a "documentary." The facts are manipulated, quotes are missued, and in the end all we have are fanatics who ignore obvious mistakes in their Fox Mulder, "I Want To Believe" quest for the truth.

Things such as Lee Harvey Oswald's FBI Agent Status (S172,) frame-by-frame analysis of the Hinkley assasination tape, and the Blue Book lead me to mistrust the government. Documents such as "Bias: A CBS Insider..." and others make me mistrust the news. Sites such as this give me faith in people who search out alternative news sources and don't take them for the gospel truth.

anyway, the point of my little rant there is that this particular point seems very weak. it links to a questionable website with a broken link. i realize that both sides of this arguement use this technique, and i would like to give you an opportunity to remedy this. if the broken link was originally in use and to a respectable source, i think you should know that it needs fixed.

i'm still in the process of going through all the points, but so far, good work.

 
At 11 December, 2006 21:33, Blogger nif said...

the link to obrien's original intreview :

(since it's not archived in the abcnews site , i have located it in the internet archive)

 
At 04 June, 2007 07:22, Blogger Merchant said...

Have to love the boneheads who argue that an unskilled pilot can't pull off those "complicated military maneuvers" - wait... what complicated maneuvers? The post was addressing the fact that Loose Change snipes a quote and leaves the all important end of the quote off, changing the meaning.

If you look at the quote they air traffic controllers, who are basing their comments off of a blip on a radar, are watching a plane change direction in an unusual manner. They're not talking about complicated maneuvers, they're talking about maneuvers that are NOT USUAL to commercial air planes. Any sudden changes in altitude, hard turns or things of that nature are NOT USUAL for commercial air liners and if observed by air traffic control may be described in such a manner.

If you think about it, the controllers were just trying to be descriptive and let people know that what they saw happen on Flight 93 was not normal for that kind of flight and if they were to guess at what it was based on the maneuvers, they would have said it was a military flight...

You want to make it sound like Grandpa and his buddy took their crop dusters out and magically performed stunts the Blue Angels would be proud of... no such thing.

 
At 27 August, 2007 13:19, Blogger Chalan said...

Follow the evidence and always question. When the ones with the answers refuse, you will find agenda. The truth is only withheld by the guilty and those who benefit from the lie.

 
At 26 January, 2008 19:13, Blogger Randall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home