from another list, Paul Z.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 08:01:05 -0700
From: Richard Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Society for the Philosophical Study of Marxism Listserve
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hijacking and controlling planes into targets on 9-11-2001
On this subject, I have been surprised by the stories I hear from people who
have joined the 9/11 Truth Movement.
One local man is a flight engineer at Boeing, who happens to work on
navigational controls. After 9/11 he tried to replicate the path that
flight 77 supposedly took to hit the Pentagon. Many professional pilots
have said that flight path is impossible, well this engineer could not get a
computer to even simulate it because that path was so outside the range of
possibility for a 757.
One of my students told me his father was a crash investigator for the Air
Force for 20 some years, and on 9/11 after seeing the impact at the Pentagon
on TV the father turns to the son and says, "There is no way that was a
757."
Another student, a former Air Force airplane mechanic, told me, after
discussing the official explanation for how a 757 could fit into a 14 foot
hole without damaging the sides of the building around that 14 foot hole,
that they have the description of the way the wings are attached backward.
We are told the wings folded back into the fuselage, but the way wings are
actually attached would make them snap off if bent back, to fold in they
have to be bent forward.
The more time I spend with the issue the more important Epistemology seems
to me. The official story is impossible and yet we are asked to believe it
on no evidence -- only the constant repetition of the impossible claim. It
is amazing the degree to which people accept absurd claims without any
evidence at all, just because they are told -- by people they know to be
liars -- that this is what happened -- even though those liars are the most
obvious suspects because they are the only ones who had the means, motive,
and opportunity.
Richard
