Reporter Apparently Gets Amnesia About 9/11 Pentagon Attack
Just another strange "coincidence" about the whole ordeal.
I love how "sincere" his retraction was, making sure to throw out the stigmatic buzzwords like "conspiracy theorists" and "no question," as if trying to pound the (contradictory to his first statements, mind you) point into your head with a hammer.
Also, I've only now become aware of a 2nd video of the Pentagon attack that was released. I knew about the one shot on ground level (the first one in this next vid), but I was not aware of the second video, shot from afar.
Not jumping into any conclusions, but I think it's kind of convenient that neither of them actually show an airplane. These guys supposedly did a 180 degree dive and came back in over the pentagon lawn, but none of the CCTVs show an airplane. The planes that hit the towers had completely free airspace for speed, and we see them just fine (usually, depending on where you get your video). So that kind of kills the "well it came in at 400mph, of course you wouldn't see it!" argument, for me.
08-10-2011, 02:47 PM
tommo
How do you even know the same guy was talking in both videos?
08-10-2011, 03:26 PM
Oneironaut Zero
Do they not show his name in both videos? I'm at work now and can't double check, but I could have sworn they showed him as Jamie McIntyre in both vids.
08-10-2011, 03:35 PM
tommo
Not that I could see. For all I know, it's just someone dubbing their own voice over some footage. Conspiracy? :lol:
08-10-2011, 03:45 PM
Oneironaut Zero
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Not that I could see. For all I know, it's just someone dubbing their own voice over some footage. Conspiracy? :lol:
Well now I wish I could watch it again, because I thought it seemed clear that the voices were clearly identical (or close enough that you'd have to be suggesting that whoever dubbed the voice was an actual voice actor or impressionist...)
And it's already likely that it's the same person (unless the audio is doctored, which there is 0 evidence of), because - being the Pentagon correspondent, he is the one who would have been there that day.
08-10-2011, 03:50 PM
tommo
Well, actually they didn't even sounds the same. One was much higher pitched. Could have just been his reporting voice though.
08-10-2011, 03:50 PM
Supernova
Ok, I'm gonna say this really loud, so everybody can hear.
doublethink
08-10-2011, 04:19 PM
tommo
yay!!!!:banana:
08-10-2011, 04:30 PM
Oneironaut Zero
I believe that goes both ways. Doublethink on whose part? :-?
08-10-2011, 04:41 PM
tommo
Who else? The reporter.
08-10-2011, 04:49 PM
Oneironaut Zero
Ah, ok. Just being clear that we were all on the same page. Lol.
08-10-2011, 05:11 PM
Xei
Ehhhh I really don't think there's anything to see here. Are they even the same guy? And if they are, he doesn't contradict himself, the first says he saw pieces but nothing large, indicating in his opinion that the plane had crashed into the side of the building, and the second says he photographed pieces of a plane. He uses the phrase 'conspiracy theorists' because, um... that's the correct phrase for what he was mentioning; people who think a plane did not crash into the building and hence that there is a conspiracy.
And I'm totally new to this stuff, but... I can see the plane in that video. A low, white, blurred, long object enters partially on the right in one frame, then it's moved to the pentagon, and there's a big explosion where it hits. What you'd expect, really, and hard to explain otherwise.
08-10-2011, 05:30 PM
Oneironaut Zero
I guess that depends on how you interpret it. You see, to me, his words and tone completely betray what he (allegedly) said in the first video. In the first video, he is saying how he picked all of those pieces, but it left him with no impression that it was an actual plane that hit the building. In the second video, he's saying "Well I was there, I picked up the pieces, and that should serve as proof that it was obviously a plane that hit the pentagon," imho.
Again, I can't replay the vid at the time to be sure of his exact wordage, so I'm just going to have to hold off on it, until I get home. But, from what I remember, it was pretty obvious, what he was implying. I also don't see any plane in that pentagon video, any more than I see an alien spacecraft in any grainy unintelligibale UFO video. I see a piece of a white (seeming), blurry object (as upposed to AA planes, which are silver).
08-10-2011, 05:48 PM
Xei
"The only pieces left are small enough that you could pick up in your hand, no [large objects like fuselage etc.]... which indicates to me that the plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon".
The colour looks pretty consistent with an AA plane to me. This along with the fact that a plane was hijacked just before this happened, and that it's hard to think of anything else the object in the footage could be, doesn't raise any suspicions with me.
You also have to factor in that people really do have problems with their memories like that. It is actually possible, that you can add things into your memory after the fact, that was never there before, and then believe you saw something you never did. So you can originally not have seen anything, but then after watching and listening to a lot of news of people reporting about it, and it will effect you until you think you saw something more than you really did.
08-11-2011, 08:17 AM
tommo
As we all know too well with dreams. :D
Very good point.
I found the amount of rubble ridiculous though. My brother pointed it out to me in one of the pictures.
Maybe it wasn't even this actually. Might have been an earthquake thing. Nevermind :P
08-11-2011, 01:10 PM
Xei
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
You also have to factor in that people really do have problems with their memories like that. It is actually possible, that you can add things into your memory after the fact, that was never there before, and then believe you saw something you never did. So you can originally not have seen anything, but then after watching and listening to a lot of news of people reporting about it, and it will effect you until you think you saw something more than you really did.
Kinda superfluous given that it's not known if they're the same reporter, and there doesn't seem to be any contradiction anyway.
Spart that video is incredible. You can sympathise with conspiracy theorists' gut reaction of "where the hell is the plane, then?", but when you stop relying on human intuition and do some research, you realise that there's nothing amiss. What I can't sympathise with is conspiracy theorists who see evidence like that and still say "where the hell is the plane, then?".
08-11-2011, 03:04 PM
Oneironaut Zero
I've seen that F4 video very many times. Personally, I don't really think it does anything to dispel the myths. That a (obviously much smaller, lighter) plane disintegrates as it hits a reinforced wall is not the same as a massive 767 hitting a wall and then punching through multiple levels of wall, beyond that. It obviously did not 'vaporize' on impact, like that F4 did. Also, the one thing(s) that you would expect to survive such a high velocity impact would be the gigantic turbine engines, which the F4 doesn't even have. (I have heard that jetliner turbines have never been completely destroyed in an airliner crash, in recorded history. I've done a few searches to this end, and I have yet to find a case where they actually have. Please, if someone can correct me on this, I'm all ears. By the way, the turbines on the 767 that hits the pentagon didn't even leave dents in the side of the building. No blemishes. Nothing. Just the fuselage.)
There is also the somewhat radical notion that the inexperienced pilot did a 180 degree, swirling decent and was still able to bring a 767 across the Pentagon lawn - a few mere feet above the deck, at upwards of 400mph. Whether its true or not, I find it extremely hard to believe. Not harder to believe than some of the theories, of course, but still...I mean really?
So, while it's a compelling video to some, I believe it kind of goes back to that whole 'apples and oranges' thing. :whyme:
I'd say there's less evidence that that video is analogous to what would happen in a 767 hit the pentagon than there is that the reporter's voice has, for some reason, been tampered with (outside of a slight change in pitch, a few years later). Wouldn't you agree?
08-11-2011, 06:47 PM
Spartiate
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
I've seen that F4 video very many times. Personally, I don't really think it does anything to dispel the myths. That a (obviously much smaller, lighter) plane disintegrates as it hits a reinforced wall is not the same as a massive 767 hitting a wall and then punching through multiple levels of wall, beyond that. It obviously did not 'vaporize' on impact, like that F4 did.
The massive 767 was also hitting a massive wall(s). But it was also going about 100 mph slower and the wall probably wasn't nuclear power plant grade concrete. Which corroborates with how there were many tiny fragments but no large pieces of wreckage.
Also, the one thing(s) that you would expect to survive such a high velocity impact would be the gigantic turbine engines, which the F4 doesn't even have. (I have heard that jetliner turbines have never been completely destroyed in an airliner crash, in recorded history. I've done a few searches to this end, and I have yet to find a case where they actually have. Please, if someone can correct me on this, I'm all ears.
By the way, the turbines on the 767 that hits the pentagon didn't even leave dents in the side of the building. No blemishes. Nothing. Just the fuselage.)
There is also the somewhat radical notion that the inexperienced pilot did a 180 degree, swirling decent and was still able to bring a 767 across the Pentagon lawn - a few mere feet above the deck, at upwards of 400mph. Whether its true or not, I find it extremely hard to believe. Not harder to believe than some of the theories, of course, but still...I mean really?
Hearsay?
Quote:
So, while it's a compelling video to some, I believe it kind of goes back to that whole 'apples and oranges' thing. :whyme:
I'd say there's less evidence that that video is analogous to what would happen in a 767 hit the pentagon than there is that the reporter's voice has, for some reason, been tampered with (outside of a slight change in pitch, a few years later). Wouldn't you agree?
What about the pentagon camera which clearly shows a large cylindrical object coming into frame before the explosion? It even looks shiny like the bare metal AA paint scheme.
08-11-2011, 07:05 PM
Alric
You have to remember planes are made out of aluminum as well, and made to be really light weight. It works well in planes, but not so much for crashing into things. It isn't like cars where they design them to withstand crashes. In the air you are not supposed to hit anything.
08-12-2011, 12:06 AM
Black_Eagle
The whole missile theory is fatally flawed. They already hijacked planes and flew them into skyscrapers. Why shoot a missile at the Pentagon and not legitimately hijack another plane when you obviously have the means?
All good points. Though I'm not so sure about the comparability of an enormous engine - at possibly about 9,000 lbs - with one that's just nearly 4,000 lbs.
Also, what were you saying was hearsay, Spart? The path that the pilots took, their alleged lack of experience or the thing about those engines having never been destroyed in crash before? As far as their path, I still find it amazing that they did this:
...and still came in as low and as fast as they did. Again, not to say it didn't happen, but wow. (But yeah, I know that the allegations of their experience is hearsay, so is that what you mean?)
Bleagle, both sides of the story are extremely flawed, imo. Too many inconsistencies, coincidences and unanswered questions, all around. That's part of the reason why there are conspiracy theories about the whole thing, in the first place.
08-13-2011, 01:56 PM
Xei
Pentagon was a poor target though, for a plane. You're probably not going to do fatal damage to a large low-lying structure like that. If they went all out for the Capitol or the White House though... presumably the crashed flight had one of those in mind.
Edit: weird timing. Anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Bleagle, both sides of the story are extremely flawed, imo. Too many inconsistencies, coincidences and unanswered questions, all around.
Like what?
08-16-2011, 02:14 PM
Oneironaut Zero
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Like what?
Well, I wasn't going to reply until I had my own response completely fleshed-out and deemed substantial, but I haven't been able to really get the time to prepare an entire dissertation on the subject. In the meantime (and I may come back and put more of my own thoughts into it all), I'll just post this, because it does bring up a good number of the points I would have brought up:
Now, please bear in mind that I'm not calling this link a smoking gun, or even stating that all of these listed points are unequivocally true. They do, however, warrant further inquiry, in my opinion. I chose this particular list because it does try to at least site sources and references, which is something that so many other 'conspiracy theorist' postings neglect to do. So, do take each declaration as its own point, and not treat the whole thing as a 'conspiracy theorist's rant,' or cherry-pick a few falsifiable claims on the list, to try to discredit the entire list (not that you'd do that). Look into the statements individually and try to prove/disprove them, through any means available. I've been steadily trying to do the same, but there are a lot of these 'coincidences' that have been talked about, and I'm only one man. :chuckle:
Really, though...if these (or, even a majority of these) are actually true, that is an astoundingly high level of coincidence for an unprecedented attack that - allegedly - nobody had any prior knowledge of.
About as relevant as saying that "a lot of spooky, seemingly-incredible coincidences are just that; coincidences" - which is pretty much common sense. And, without actually applying the declaration to the points listed above, individually, it proves to be pretty irrelevant, really.
08-16-2011, 07:27 PM
Xei
They're not incredible. Which ones are incredible? They're disjointed random events which point to no overall picture about anything. Most of them don't even make any sense. You can find such events around anything and it implies nothing; there are a million other coincidental things which could have happened around 9/11 but didn't. You know what is a gigantic coincidence? That of all the hundreds of people involved in the conspiratorial activity, not a single one who was involved, or was approached, blew the whistle. Now that is incredible.
08-16-2011, 07:54 PM
Oneironaut Zero
I - very purposefully - wrote "seemingly-incredible," which should tell you that I wasn't denoting anything as 'objectively incredidble.' Judging by the numerous chain mails and other spam that comes to us everyday, talking about many of the same "spooky coincidences" that your link talks about (as well as many 'OMG, [X]+[X]=911!!!' coincidences of the same kind), I really don't think 'seemingly-incredible' was a a stretch for me to say. Many people tend to think of such things as incredible.
Though I guess it makes for a good straw man, eh? Ignore the individual points, if you want. Didn't really expect for you to take any of them seriously enough to dig into them. But, instead, you imply that "even if they are true, they are just coincidences." To me, that's just lazy.
08-16-2011, 09:54 PM
Xei
I don't really know what you're talking about or what the point of this is. I don't really care either, the war was bullshit in any case and hundreds of thousands of innocent people died regardless of whether a few thousand innocents also died in the US in a false flag operation, though that doesn't seem consistent or supported anyway.
08-17-2011, 01:27 AM
Oneironaut Zero
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I don't really know what you're talking about or what the point of this is. I don't really care either...
Peachy. Then I guess we're done, here. I'm sure you can see yourself out.
Hopefully, anyone else reading this thread will at least give the points listed in the last link I posted some thought, and not try to file them away with a dissenting response that doesn't show even the slightest hint of having looked at the material.
08-17-2011, 01:41 AM
Xei
I looked at some and got bored, there are hundreds and the ones I saw were not indicative of anything. I asked you to highlight any that you thought were, but you didn't. Boo hoo.
08-17-2011, 01:43 AM
Oneironaut Zero
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I looked at some and got bored, there are hundreds and the ones I saw were not indicative of anything. I asked you to highlight any that you thought were, but you didn't. Boo hoo.
Awesome (read as: typical). Thanks for the recap. :thumbup:
And, technically, you just said "like what?" I gave a list (which you didn't even touch. Instead, you're trying to insubstantially dispel the entire thing by saying "they are not indicative of anything"). Move the goalposts much? (Seemed relevant. :P) Nah, of course you don't.
08-17-2011, 02:10 AM
Xei
What is this thread even for. What point were you making? You still didn't find out if those two guys were the same person. Why not? You didn't answer how the comments would even contradict each other in the first place. Why did you think they did? This is just plain ol' confirmation bias; if you look at it objectively the 'weird coincidence' in question doesn't even exist. It's expectations influencing perceptions, faulty inference and seeing patterns in random data, well understood psychological phenomena which I imagine will deal with every other 'coincidence'. Planes smash into tiny pieces when they hit buildings. There's footage of a large object flying into the building followed by an explosion. There are eyewitnesses. There are pieces of the plane and photos of the debris of a plane which exactly corresponds to the plane that had been hijacked that day before it and all of its passengers suddenly ceased to exist. Not only is there nothing that contradicts a plane hitting the Pentagon; the idea that it didn't is 100% inconsistent with what is known. What is there to discuss here?
08-17-2011, 03:50 AM
Oneironaut Zero
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
What is this thread even for. What point were you making?
That I think it's kind of suspicious (with all of the surrounding conspiracy theories) that he would do what seems like a 180 on his recount of whether or not the evidence he helped pick up was indicative of a plane crash. Nothing more. Nothing less. I thought that much was obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
You still didn't find out if those two guys were the same person. Why not?
Because that's not my burden of proof. I presented the videos as they are. As they are presented (and as it seems is legit), they are both the same person. To me, they sound alike. If you are trying to assert that they are not the same person, the burden of proof lies with you.
[Edit](And, just for shits and giggles, and found the CNN transcript. Turns out (surprise surprise) that it was the same reporter. What was left out was that the reporter stated a few other things that contradicted the allegation:
"A short -- a while ago I walked right up next to the building, firefighters were still trying to put the blaze. The fire, by the way, is still burning in some parts of the Pentagon. And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a cockpit windshield or other window from the plane."
And then he said:
"You know, it might have appeared that way, but from my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, and as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you can pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around, which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse."
So it seems much less like he was implying that there was no airplane, than he was just saying that there didn't seem to much evidence outside of the immediate viscinity that a plane hit the building. Which one he was actually saying is still not quite clear, and even in context, they seem a bit contradictory.
You see, if I were trying to refute a point, this would be something I would present - not a blanket, generic sentiment that 'well, you're obviously just delusional'. But if that's your standard of a 'substantial argument,' then that's your prerogative. I have no qualms whatsoever, about conceding to a well-substantiated point, when I'm wrong. Problem is that you spend more time trying to turn your nose up at people you disagree with, than actually presenting a solid case for why you disagree. You should really work on that...
Though I don't see much green on any American Airlines planes. Just sayin. :chuckle:
[/Edit]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
You didn't answer how the comments would even contradict each other in the first place. Why did you think they did?
I've already answered this, on the first page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
This is just plain ol' confirmation bias; if you look at it objectively the 'weird coincidence' in question doesn't even exist. It's expectations influencing perceptions, faulty inference and seeing patterns in random data, well understood psychological phenomena which I imagine will deal with every other 'coincidence'.
Just like how, if you look at any whole list of coincidences 'objectively,' they are really just coincidences, since a completely unrelated list of 'coincidences' are said to be so, as well. Right?
By the way, the 'well-understood psychological phenomena' you are talking about works both ways. Just as there is 'well-understood psychological phenomena' that will get people to believe conspiracy theories, there is 'well-understood psychological phenomena' that will get people to ignore 800lb gorillas in a room. You really aren't making any point, here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Planes smash into tiny pieces when they hit buildings.
The twin towers were built to withstand multiple plane crashes.
See how easy it is to make a declarative statement which apparently isn't all that infallible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
There's footage of a large object flying into the building followed by an explosion.
There's a one-frame still of an object (size undeterminable) moving into the building (so low that even to say it's 'flying' is questionable), followed by an explosion. I'm not declaring that the object is NOT an airplane, but let's try to show a little objectivity here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
There are eyewitnesses.
Yeah, I keep hearing that. Funny how, when eyewitness testimony corraborates an official story, it's admissible, but when it doesn't, it's 'anecdotal,' deemed without credit, and usually explained away as 'people being caught up in the moment, and not knowing what they are seeing.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
There are pieces of the plane and photos of the debris of a plane which exactly corresponds to the plane that had been hijacked that day before it and all of its passengers suddenly ceased to exist.
On the fence about this. It took years for any sign (that I know of) of photos that showed even the slightest hint of being from an airplane to surface. We also have to take into account that The Pentagon, as highly secure as it was, has only two grainy tapes (only one of which shows a single frame of an unidentifiable object) that surface, showing anything that happened that day. Using the same guise of 'logic,' though; most people will denounce a UFO video simply because it was only taken from 2-3 different camera angles, instead of the 1 million different cellphone angles that they assume would surface if a UFO was actually spotted by the public.
I have not heard anything specifically-plausible theory that accounts for any missing passengers that might have been on the plane that's alleged to have hit the Pentagon, if that plane didn't actually hit it.
On that note, though, let's be glad that the alleged highjackers completely passed the Pentagon, made a Han Solo grade mid-flight U-turn and came back to hit the 1, virtually unmanned area of the Pentagon. They sure are considerate of our military brass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
What is there to discuss here?
200+ points that you asked for, but are continuously dancing around actually acknowledging. :chuckle:
Seriously, though, Xei. I'm not expecting you to give anything said in a thread like this any serious, unbiased thought, so you can pretty much go where you want, from here. Your constantly petty, douchey posting style has really robbed me of any lingering desire to have a respectful discussion with you which might involve differing opinions. I'm very aware of your opinion on such topics (you feel adamant to stamp your feet and yell 'this is bullshit and you're stupid for even entertaining the idea' - even if you can't back up the notion with anything solid), so, really, I think we're done here.
:cheers:
08-17-2011, 04:18 AM
DeletePlease
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
What is there to discuss here?
The plane. Where the hell is it? :0
08-17-2011, 03:56 PM
Xei
ITT: the burden of proof is on you to disprove my assertions, otherwise they are true.
08-17-2011, 05:14 PM
Oneironaut Zero
It was obvious. Didn't think it required 'proving.' (Not only were they the same voice, but his title of CNN Pentagon correspondant has not changed.) The idea that he was a completely different person was the 'extraordinary claim' that required 'extraordinary evidence.'
But whatever, I did the grunt work for you anyway.
