Thread: 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.

How do you even know the same guy was talking in both videos?

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.

Not that I could see. For all I know, it's just someone dubbing their own voice over some footage. Conspiracy?

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?

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.

Well, actually they didn't even sounds the same. One was much higher pitched. Could have just been his reporting voice though.

Ok, I'm gonna say this really loud, so everybody can hear.


doublethink

yay!!!!

I believe that goes both ways. Doublethink on whose part?

Who else? The reporter.

Ah, ok. Just being clear that we were all on the same page. Lol.

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.

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).

"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.

Why there is no wreckage:

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.

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?".

As we all know too well with dreams.
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

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.

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?

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.

The F-4 had a pair of hefty J-79 turbojets in it.

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?

So, while it's a compelling video to some, I believe it kind of goes back to that whole 'apples and oranges' thing.

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.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

The F-4 had a pair of hefty J-79 turbojets in it.

The government is building pod racers? WTF!

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.

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.

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.

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?