Scoop Feedback: On Scoop’s Flight 77 Coverage
Where the plane is
(via Fark). Quite clearly you can see an object at the right of the first frame - the plane's tail - which is missing in the second. Given the speed of the plane, and the likely frame rate of a security camera, this seems conclusive to me.
Incidentally guys, I must agree with your correspondent who is getting sick of your editorial policy, or rather lack of it. Most of the value of a site like Scoop is in the selection of items. If I have to discard all the obviously whacko releases, and the non-news (eg the bizarre Katya Rivas series you persist in publishing), it's too much work - I might as well go back to skim-reading Stuff, the Herald and the BBC's sites.
You remind me of editors of student newspapers I used to know, who abdicated all editorial responsibility in the name of giving everyone a voice. They succeeded in this, at the cost of losing their readership.
If I want to read a free-for-all collection of random publications, uncensored, and from every possible viewpoint, that's what usenet is for. As it is, Scoop is reducing its value to being merely a reliable source for Hard News.
To CD Sludge,
Some questions for would-be conspiracists. What would you tell the families of the folks aboard Flight 77? Their loved ones were part of a massive hoax? Maybe they're off sunning on that island where Tom Hanks lived with the volleyball?
More questions. How is anyone going to swear to silence the medical and emergency crews who responded to the Pentagon? They came from all over the metropolitan Washington area. Maybe they've all been secretly assassinated since that day? Death would be the only way to insure absolutely no leaks.
Has anyone bothered to read about the renovations that were taking place at the Pentagon prior to the crash, including measures to counter bombings? The structure was considered an engineering marvel when first built and it wasn't being upgraded with the little pigs' straw or sticks. I am not sure what the point may be to all this stuff making the rounds, but one thing is abundantly clear. The stories generate a lot of heat, but shed precious little light.
Since the new year I have noticed a distinct change in Scoop. It used to be possible to get a balancing view on a number of world events.
There are plenty of web sites that spill out USA State Dept. news releases and further USA propaganda and I hardly need Scoop to read these.
The balancing news and view points are no longer a feature of Scoop.
Failing any change Scoop is no longer a site I will visit.
What is wrong with you morons? The Pentagon is a fortified structure built to withstand attack during wartime. It's not just some office building. Jeez.
Also, the flight which crashed in Pennsylvania disintegrated and there was little recognizable wreckage there either. Do you think that was staged too?
And what has become of the passengers of those flights? Are you saying that the thousands of people who new and worked with the passengers are all maintaining the same false story of what happened to them? And nobody has cracked yet?
What color is the sky where you people are?
RE: Pentagon 9 September 2001.
I have just perused your site at http://www.humanunderground.com and at http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/s11-media/et7.jpg Great stuff. I would like to add that I cannot accept that a 757 hit the Pentagon. If the photographs from the security camera were 4/100ths of a second apart then there has been manipulation of the photographs, for the following reason.
A Boeing 757 is 155 feet long. Its speed, we are told, was maximum, or about 450 knots. That is 450 nautical miles per hour. If the aircraft appeared in the first photograph, then it would advanced 30.4 feet, or about 1/5th of the length of the fuselage, in 4/100ths of a second. There would have been no explosion as the aircraft would not have reached the building by that time.
450 knots by 6080 feet divided by 60 minutes divided by 60 seconds divided by 100 by 4/100ths equals 30.4 feet traveled in 4/100ths of a second. At 550 knots the aircraft would have advanced 37.15 feet and at 650 knots would have advanced 43.91 feet. It would have to have been subsonic or the sonic boom would have broken windows for blocks around the Pentagon and been heard and reported by numerous people. At any of the above speeds the aircraft could not have hit the Pentagon between the first and fourth photographs. Even a subsonic missile could not have reached the building in that time. The aircraft would not have been a blur on the film it would have loomed large. The wreckage shown as claimed to have come from the 757 appears to be either an engine cowl or large fairing of some kind from a much smaller craft, perhaps a cruise missile. Indeed the blur in the first photograph looks suspiciously like a cruise missile in shape. According to the measurements shown on your site the tail of a 757, at 44 feet, would have been about two thirds of the way up the building, 71 feet, in aspect. There would have been identifiable wreckage at the crash site regardless of the intensity of the fire. An aircraft hitting a mountain in cruise always leaves wreckage, particularly from the empennage (tail section) and that is why the FDR (Flight Data Recorder) and CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) are mounted in that area. There would have been less longitudinal compression of the wreckage (if you can find it, and I have never heard of an aircraft completely dissolving following a crash) in comparison to hitting a mountain as mountains are scandalously solid compared to man-made structures like concrete buildings. Has the FDR or CVR from American Airlines (AA) Flight 77 been recovered? Which insurance company paid out on the hull of AA 77? Is it proven that four aircraft crashed or went missing on September 11 2001? Did two flight crews from each of American Airlines and United Airlines die that day? The pilots/flight attendants unions should be able to confirm this. Has anybody confirmed the existence of the American Airlines aircraft that has been reported sitting at an airport in Manitoba since early September, under heavy US military guard? The "eyewitnesses" may well be plants. It is well known anyway that eyewitnesses are notoriously wrong in their recollections because they are exposed to fleeting moments of unfamiliar events unless experienced in similar situations. The aircraft that crashed in Maryland suffered an in-flight explosion either as a result of a missile or catastrophic failure of integral structure. Or was there a bomb on board? It could not have been spread over 8 miles of countryside following a dive into the ground.
To Fox News I can only say to their slogan that "The spin stops here." Baloney!
Who is Fox News protecting?
Cheers Len Clampett
Airline Transport Pilot (Retired)
Re: your story at http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0203/S00030.htm. While there is some confusion over whether or not Flight 77 was a B757 (wingspan 124 feet) or a B767 (wingspan 156 feet), either way, the outer length of each Pentagon side facade is 921 feet - almost 6 times wider that the wingspan of the B767, making your superimposed portrayal of a B757 far too large (at more than a third that width).
You need to review these things carefully before putting them out there for everyone to see.
Southern State Section Director