Replies

I’m a lawyer and parse words for a living. For instance, I knew Tiger’s original statement was an admission to the affairs because it called the rumors “irresponsible” rather than “false.”
This air tran update is also very odd. Notice it says the woman “believed” it was spanish. Using “believe” makes the sentence entirely vague and meaningless in a court of law. I wonder also if the interviewee used the word “believe” or if the interviewer did. In this day and age why would anyone not recognize Spanish? Are you telling me there was no one on the plane who could speak spanish? No one could google on an iphone for “off” in spanish? The captains could not radio ahead and ask the control tower for the translation? Lastly, why would the two dudes not get back on the plane to reach their destination if this was a simple miscomunication?

Edit, read the full article and saw he was allowed back on with his companion and then suddenly, in the next paragraph, ELEVEN OTHERS - none of whom could apparently translate off.
Notice that the AJC is so sure of itself but then concedes that it does not even know whether the device was a “phone or camera” give me a break. Also notice it does not describe what the 12 looked like. Not saying the nasa dude's story is correct but the airline's statement and the article hardly close this case.

“”I’m a lawyer and parse words for a living. For instance, I knew Tiger’s original statement was an admission to the affairs because it called the rumors “irresponsible”””

Kinda like Obama using “irresponsible” for those opposing his plans?

As far as the story in the AJC about the Air Tran flight - I don’t trust that newspaper at all. It’s not even allowed to be thrown in our driveway. I don’t know anyone with any functioning brain that reads the trash put out by them. I don’t watch local news from Atlanta so perhaps that gal has shown up to be interviewed and I would be interested in knowing more about her. She certainly wasn’t the only eyewitness.

Everyone disputing the original account of Tedd is hanging on to what that one woman on the plane says she saw and heard. Air Tran records could certainly be wrong as to him missing his flight in OH and being too late to catch the plane to TX.

Canada Free Press says they had the story 2 days after it happened and refused to publish it until they did an investigation. They published it this week. The Chaplain is wrong also? He wasn’t an eyewitness but he did talk to others who left the flight.

Something stinks and I don’t think it’s with the original account issued by Tedd. Understanding and seeing political correctness in all its glory today, why should we be surprised that it wasn’t reported nationwide?

I’m a lawyer and parse words for a living....This air tran update is also very odd.

Yep. The wording pegged the spin meter for me too, especially given AirTran's earlier statement which never disputed that Petruna was on the plane, saying merely that his account was "in conflict" on "numerous" or "several" points. (Working from memory here.) AirTran's statements--and the AJC accounts--curiously avoid the issue of disembarking passengers, referring only to cell phone man and his translator. The only way we know about the rest of his group is the sudden mention of them reboarding along with a new crew. No explanation. They all just materialized.

Bottom line for me: the original crew left the craft and refused to reboard. No need to even consider the Petruna letter at this juncture.

Rather than let memory serve, I found the quote of Airtran’s original statement on Petruna’s letter, via KHOU 11 News in Houston.

“A number of the allegations included in the article posted by Mr. Petruna conflict with the statements obtained by the flight crew.”

http://www.khou.com/home/AirTran-e-mail-stirs-up-Internet-firestorm-78474802.html

Are you telling me there was no one on the plane who could speak Spanish?

I'm not a lawyer but I am a writer and I also caught the ambiguous use of the word "believed" and understood that its use was part of a deliberate tact to mislead and deceive. And knowing that this was a flight headed to Texas, to the American Southwest, for cripes sake -- well, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that there weren't at least half a dozen Spanish-English bilingual folks on board. That ALONE told me that this AirTran and TSA account was manipulated partial-truth bullsh*t. The situation it implied (implied because of the phrase "believed it was Spanish") wasn't even remotely plausible. At least she could have said she "believed" they were speaking Balinese or Samoan or Swahili or some language where it would be believable that no one else on board could translate. I mean, come on!

Lastly, why would the two dudes not get back on the plane to reach their destination if this was a simple miscomunication?

Yep. The airline and TSA officials' claim that it was "a simple miscommunication" (whatever that is) is obviously bogus.