Paul Joseph Watson: Ze Plane! Ze Plane!

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/may2006/160506giantpsyop.htm

Watson shows his true colours:

The fact that they have again chosen to release grainy and foggy images which only lead to more speculation tell us two things.

1) The government truly is frightened to death of releasing any images which accurately depict what happened at the Pentagon because it doesn't jive with the official version of 9/11.

2) Or the government knows that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and has clear footage of the incident, but is deliberately releasing these speculative images in order to stoke the debate so it can later release the high quality video and use it to debunk the entire 9/11 truth movement.

The media obsession with this one facet of an entire smorgasbord of 9/11 questions, and their refusal to address more hardcore 9/11 evidence, leads us to fear the latter explanation is the case.
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
More on Watson. In his latest, on the Da Vinci Code (http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/may2006/180506davincicode.htm), we see this sage advice:

Don't waste your time debating this garbage with anyone, refuse to even address the matter other than to tell them it is the latest bread and circus act to follow Michael Jackson and the Raelians and should be vehemently dismissed by anyone with more than two functioning brain cells.
Personally, I'd rather talk about it, separating truth from lies, and not throwing the baby out with the bath water.
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Here he is again:

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/may2006/220506flight77.htm

One of the pieces of evidence skeptics cite to claim that Flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon is that the plane's incredibly low altitude would have thrown people and cars around the highway on the approach path like rag dolls by means of wake turbulence. How accurate is this assumption?

The scope of this short article is to raise questions, not debunk either side of the argument.
While further confirmation will obviously be necessary in closing the case, it appears the argument that the lack of damage from wake turbulence does not prove that anything other than a large commercial airliner hit the Pentagon on September 11 2001.
He may have a point about wake turbulence (though, no real mention of jet blast is present), but the images he provides do not show planes flying low enough to clip lamp-poles. Also, the planes are not travelling at full speed. In order to prove anything, we need data on a 757 travelling 10-20ft above the ground over cars and lamp-poles at full speed.

Any pilots wish to comment?
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Continuing the conversation with myself:

In an interesting couple of coincidences, Watson has just posted the following:

Former Pilot Says 'Jet Blast' Dismissal Doesn't Fly

This article presents a rebuttal to Watson's previous article on wake turbulence from an anonymous aeronautical engineer. A few interesting quotes:

Following the publication of our article questioning claims that wake turbulence or jet blast could have thrown cars around the highway as Flight 77 approached the Pentagon at a reported altitude of 20 feet, a former pilot and aeronautical engineer contacted us to refute the arguments presented in the piece.

It is our intention to explore both sides of the argument and leave the reader to decide for themselves if the Pentagon Flight 77 issue is a genuine smoking gun of 9/11 or an attempt by the government to bait us into a honey pot trap by later releasing crystal clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.[...]

The pilot, who wishes to remain anonymous, stated that the photos carried showing planes coming in to land at St. Maarten-Princess Juliana Int'l Airport in the Netherlands, and the apparent lack of wake turbulence or jet blast as a result of their low altitude over people on a beach, were misleading. The photos depict slow moving planes at speeds of no more than 100 knots, not 400 knots as reported with Flight 77.

He said that it was key to point out the difference between jet blast and wake turbulence. Wake turbulence is defined as a ,"turbulent air condition caused by small, tornado-like horizontal whirlwinds training an aircraft's wingtips (wingtip vortices)." In contrast, jet blast is described as, "phenomena resulting from the passage of an aircraft through the atmosphere. The term includes vortices, thrust stream turbulence, jet blast, jet wash, propeller wash, and rotor wash both on the ground and in the air." [...]

Therefore the pilot states unequivocally that jet blast would have tossed people and cars around like rag dolls if they were 20 feet or less below a Boeing 757, as is claimed by eyewitness reports.

Regarding the eyewitness report of Pentagon renovation worker and retired Army officer Frank Probst, who claimed that the plane flew so low past him that the engine was six feet away, our source exclaimed that this was a ridiculous impossibility.[...]

The pilot also entertained the notion that eyewitnesses had grossly overestimated the altitude of the plane and that it was higher than the reported 20 feet but he was still adamant that those who claimed to have seen the faces of the passengers in the window were living in a fantasy land because the speed of the plane would have meant it appeared as a blur and akin to a bullet flying over their heads.

Our source, having had direct and extensive personal flying experience at low altitudes, also completely dismissed the feasibility that a Boeing 757 could be flown for any significant distance at just 20 feet above ground. He also cited other pilots of large commercial aircraft who concurred.[...]

The pilot and aeronautical expert said that the evidence suggests a Global Hawk was used to attack the Pentagon, citing alleged Flight 77 pilot Hani Hanjour's complete lack of flight skills and the incredulous story that he and four other conspirators overpowered two burly 185lbs aircraft veterans and pulled off military class flight maneuvers to attack what was virtually an invisible target.

Despite this, the pilot, who first approached Flight 77 questions in an effort to disprove them, was adamant that the government would soon release a "fantastic clear shot of Flight 77 coming in and close the book." He points out that modern technology and computer generated graphics can accurately forge any event and make it appear completely seamless and fears the entire Pentagon issue is a trap to distract researchers and eventually will be used to discredit the entire 9/11 truth movement.

Our source pleads with people to focus on the real hardcore smoking guns of 9/11, in particular the unexplained collapse of Building 7 and clear evidence that the twin towers were brought down by a controlled demolition. [...]
I noticed a couple funny coincidences. In my last post I mentioned "jet blast" and how Watson didn't mention it. Also, I made a similar comment on the "faces in the windows" in one of the Pentagon witness threads. Strange that this 'source' also mentions a Global Hawk, but then says 'but we shouldn't focus on the issue'...
 

Ruth

The Living Force
hkoehli said:
Continuing the conversation with myself:
Lol, no you're not, we're listening....

Anyway, the reason I brought this guy up in the first place was because I didn't think he was a source of deliberate disinformation. Perhaps unwittingly. Besides he's only 23 years old and what 23 yo has so much life experience that he can't be distracted?

I've no doubt that the website 'Propaganda Matrix' has been compromised utterly and completely and can be shut down at the drop of a hat, but that would just put this guy out of a job, or send him to work for other people. I get the feeling that control of this site is definately behind the scenes and has to do more with technical aspects.

Mind you, I could be talking a load of nonsense. Its just something I can't put my finger on. And, I happen to think he writes well, or rather intelligently.
 
Top Bottom