Sunday, May 06, 2007

Shooting Down The Myth Of The "Crash" Of United 93

A media contact of mine emailed me a link (click above) to which had some video from two different news channels showing the crash site of United 9/11, the jet that had been hijacked by AlQaeda, and was supposedly crashed into the ground because of the heroic people on board. This is the same flight that, I believe, Donald Rumsfeld (or was it Dick Cheney) had accidentally let slip as the plane that was SHOT DOWN. No one in the media did anything to pursue that.

No one in the media seems to have pursued the angle shown in this dual clip from major news channels, which shows the crash site. No one seems to care.

Because 9/11 had taken on more of a World Trade Center and 3000 dead people angle, even I had forgotten these questions that had come to mind. I did not even recall something that this clip reminded me of... one of the reporters even says that the gouge in the ground is about 10 feet wide..... That is LESS than HALF of a jet plane cabin's width....

Since this jet supposedly crashed into a field, the same excuse cannot be used as was used to explain why there are no plane parts left at the Pentagon. That plane supposedly "vaporized" on impact with the stone building of the Pentagon. Where did the entire fuselage of United 93 go? Vaporized on impact with soft mud?

So, lets think about this.

- A whole 757 crashes (supposedly forced to crash and NOT blown up by a missile in mid-air).
- It was hijacked so as to be FULL of fuel (to do maximum damage to the building it was targeting).
- It was "crashed" not too long into its journey.

Yet, there was NO huge crater, NO plane wreckage, NO fuselage left, NO fire, NO smoke, NO smouldering debris.

In other words, there was NO way a plane full of fuel had crashed there.

The AlQaeda pilots did not "dump fuel" as pilots do when they come in for an emergency landing. The plane did not circle for hours to burn off fuel. The fuel would not only have set fire to everything, but the ground would be scorched. NOTHING of that type is seen. (See for yourself at the video link above.)

More than likely, United 93 was shot down.

Crass as it may sound, if that was our government's decision, I can understand it and I probably would have made the same decision. Sacrifice 30-40 people on a plane or risk having that plane hit a stadium full of 30-40,000 people? The decision, though sad, cannot even be that tough in the "greater scheme" of things.

To me, lying about it, making up stories of heroic people on board forcing the plane to crash, lying about not having shot it down, are stupid and dumb moves. These kinds of stupid coverups are what give rise to worse conspiracy theories. The survivors of the United 93 passengers would be sad - but they would understand. Their loved ones were going to die anyway --- either shot down or crashed or crashed and killing thousands more.

We owe it to the memory of all that died on 9/11, and our nation, that the truth come out. See the videos for yourself. What do you think?

Saturday, May 05, 2007

It Sure Ain't The Hilton, But It Sure Is A Hilton

Well, finally, some justice, even without the many ironies.

Our self-exposed air-headed heiress, Paris Hilton, is finally being treated like a simple citizen, instead of some cheap, slutty, version of "royal(pain in the arse)ty". Just like in the simple life of people in reality, who break the law and go to jail, The Simple Life reality-TV star broke the law, again, and is finally going to jail. Apparently a judge has finally done what some other judge should have done a long time ago --- thrown the book at her, and landed her rather puny butt in jail. Too bad it's only for 45 days.

Hilton, the heiress to the large hotel chain of the same name, will spend 45 days -- definitely without room service -- in a cell that is probably smaller than her pet's cage. She will get to watch TV, and if she's lucky she may catch reruns of her own show.

But, all jokes about being a guest of the state aside, there were two ironies. One was that the commercial advertisement on the Yahoo/AP page reporting how she cannot use a cell phone or Blackberry in jail was for a -- drum roll -- Blackberry 8800 device. And, two, what amazed me was this bit of information in the Associated Press news item reporting this "event".

Paris Hilton's mother, Kathy Hilton, is upset. Now, mind you, she is not upset at Paris Hilton for dragging the family's name through court (besides the mud with many of her sexcapades). She is not upset that her daughter had been arrested for drunk driving. She is not upset that her daughter had previously left the scene of (minor) traffic accident. She is, apparently, also not upset that her sweet little daughter chose to violate probation.

The honorable Kathy Hilton, whom one assumes Paris Hilton gets her "looks" AND her "moral values" from, is upset at the government for wasting tax payer money on this "nonsense".

The only non-sense I see in this whole episode is that Kathy Hilton actually THOUGHT this thought and then had the nerve, and poor sensibility, to state that "opinion". Perhaps she just wants her daughter to be out of jail making good old-fashioned porn videos like any good Hilton woman should. But that's just In My Humble Opinion. Can someone please ask Kathy Hilton?