|
I'm sure that everyone here knows well enough the difference between skepticism and condescension. Just a kindly reminder.
Mrs. Theresa Renaud gave a suspiciously conflicting report.
Interviewer: Did you hear the explosion from your position?
Theresa: Oh yes, yes we did. As a matter of fact, we heard it...and , cause I was just like standing there looking out the window I didn't see what caused it or if there was another impact.
Oh there's another plane just hit!
HIGHLY suspicious. The thing is, this requires an odd explanation. Had she just been lying or exaggerating, that would have been different, but she knew, despite any indication, that the initial impact was a plane. I can't think of any reason that she knew they were planes 1) because she specifically said that she didn't know what hit the building, 2) no one, up to that point thought it was a plane and 3) even with binoculars, she would have been hard pressed to actually see any plane. She knew it was a plane before the news outlets. Think about that. She knew it was a plane before anyone else.
When I consider this scenario, the most plausible explanations are either she knew before the news outlets somehow, or the news outlets sat on the information and she was a fake interview. Option 1 means she was familiar with the plan of attack befoe it was carried out and is likely in collusion (scary thought). Option 2 means that the media, in a (everyone take a deep breath) conspiracy, kept information from the public about the nature of the attack until the second impact. What do you think the implications of these two options are? Can you think of any other options?
|