I guess when looking at things like this, i tend to believe the one that makes the most sense. The Snopes explanation makes perfect logical sense, whereas the conspiracy theory seems completely irrational.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: S. Isaac Dealey
  To: CF-Community
  Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 9:29 AM
  Subject: Re: Pentagon coverup?

  I'm not certain I believe either of them really... They also don't
  make any comment about nearby video footage of the crash having been
  confiscated (and not subsequently released). Would be nice to see a
  film clip from one of the closed-circuit cameras in the area.
  Presumably these wouldn't be national secrets unless there were some
  legitimate reason to cover up what actually happened there. So while
  the snopes information makes a lot of sense, it's still not a complete
  picture. Who's to say that the "debris" photo the snopes site shows
  isn't staged? It would be very easy to place a random piece of garbage
  on the ground way back there and snap the photo to have something to
  show people and say "look! Debris from the plane!" It certainly
  doesn't seem to me from the photos like there's enough debris or
  damage from the wings ("blackened sections" to me is not absolute
  proof of a wing, given that blackness can be created by soot and fire)
  -- even if as they say, the wings folded inward during impact. That's
  admittedly not a professional opinion, it's just some schmuck looking
  at the photos. It just seems like an oddly symetrical hole given the
  situation.

  I'm not saying it's true - I'm also not saying it's a hoax. I'm just
  saying the information I've had about it seems to me like an
  incomplete enough picture to leave room for more than one possibility.
  If a magician can make a living making people see things that aren't
  real, then it's just _possible_ that what we're told happened at the
  pentagon isn't entirely true.

  <snip>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]

Reply via email to