Something important is missing from this story. What is the military hiding re the NYC low flyover?
Why was the military trying to film a plane low-flying over NYC?
I don't buy the explanation - the only one given - that they were just trying to update file photos. Because according to this article, the exercise cost nearly $330,000!
But what really disturbs me are two lines in this story:
Why would such a public act be "classified"?
Why would the government officials direct the NYPD to keep silent?
I mean, why shouldn't I jump to a conclusion here?. Why not pre-film a plane low-flying over NYC and then use that in some story later to present an event as real that might be entirely fake? A "Wag the Dog" scenario, so to speak?
I'd really like to hear a better explanation. Because lacking one, this story reeks of something far more sinister. I hope Obama and McCain join forces to get to the bottom of why this plane was launched on such a mission, which ended up retraumatizing some citizens of NYC. I know how they feel. I start to feel ill when I see planes over downtown Los Angeles, and we weren't even attacked. It's a horrible feeling, to be afraid of something I never gave a second thought to before.
I really want to know, now. What the heck was the military doing, and why?
I don't buy the explanation - the only one given - that they were just trying to update file photos. Because according to this article, the exercise cost nearly $330,000!
But what really disturbs me are two lines in this story:
... The Federal Aviation Administration said the aircraft, which functions as Air Force One when the president is aboard, was taking part in a classified, government-sanctioned photo shoot.Classified?
... New York Police Deputy Commissioner Paul J. Browne said the department had been alerted about the flight "with directives to local authorities not to disclose information about it."
Why would such a public act be "classified"?
Why would the government officials direct the NYPD to keep silent?
I mean, why shouldn't I jump to a conclusion here?. Why not pre-film a plane low-flying over NYC and then use that in some story later to present an event as real that might be entirely fake? A "Wag the Dog" scenario, so to speak?
I'd really like to hear a better explanation. Because lacking one, this story reeks of something far more sinister. I hope Obama and McCain join forces to get to the bottom of why this plane was launched on such a mission, which ended up retraumatizing some citizens of NYC. I know how they feel. I start to feel ill when I see planes over downtown Los Angeles, and we weren't even attacked. It's a horrible feeling, to be afraid of something I never gave a second thought to before.
I really want to know, now. What the heck was the military doing, and why?
posted by Real History Lisa at 5:15 PM - Permanent Link -
5 Comments:
Lisa,
I,too, find this matter extremely puzzling. One justification offered for this crazy exercise was that they wanted a picture of AF1 with the Statue of Liberty in the background.
Haven't these guys heard of Photoshop? Much cheaper than the reputed cost of this scary flight.
Something doesn't smell right about this.
Maybe what they were doing was testing the response system in NYC? It's entirely possible that they were stress testing the emergency response system as well as the public reaction to such a scenario. Maybe the official who authorized this exercise did not expect such an uproar. Just speculating
AB, that makes no sense at all. But nice try trying to explain that away.
No. I think they wanted photos and film. But why? What do they use that for?
Lisa,
The exercise struck me as a field test/measurement as one leg of an overall propaganda/ mind control planning project.
Why treat such a public act as a big secret? With modern graphics software, they certainly do not need the plane flying by the buildings to create a picture of same. However...
If they are trying to measure how much influence/ effect 911 still carries on the public psyche, as one means of testing to see if a loss of impact is sufficient to be in part responsible for the public turn against war, then this is a reasonable method of testing that.
For one extreme hypothetical application, it could be to see if another attack is needed or useful. Had those on the ground reacted with bemusement or indifference, then they might feel another episode was needed. Of course, I am not claiming this to be the case, just using it as an example of one possible application.
FWIW...
My own speculative theory is that a Bush admin holdover was attempting to embarrass and/or sabotage Obama's presidency with the terrible publicity that such a stunt generated. Fortunately, I read that Obama ordered an inquiry the day following the event.
I have a hunch someone will lose their job or be demoted over this eventually, which, BTW, is more than Bush did to anyone after 9/11. (All the more reason to support the notion that it was in fact a false flag attack that was done covertly with Bush-Cheney's approval.)
Post a Comment
<< Home