The guerrilla reporters of Infowars—last seen being broken up and hauled out of the spin room at CNN's Republican debate—nailed Michael Moore at a screening of Sicko and got him to discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories. (Sorry, other theories of the events of 9/11.) The reporters clearly ask whether Moore thinks "9/11 was an inside job," and he implies that... it might have been.
The interview starts at 5:49 into the video. (If the video doesn't embed, the link is here.)
>
REPORTER: We want to get some ideas, your comments, on 9/11 being an inside job because since your last movie, which gave us a lot of information...
MOORE: Right, right, right.
REPORTER: ... we now are in possession of all other kinds of facts and evidence.
MOORE: Right.
REPORTER: And we know that 9/11 was an inside job.
MOORE: Right.
REPORTER: So we want to get your comments on that.
MOORE: Well, I've had a number of firefighters tell me over the years, and since Fahrenheit 9/11, that they heard these explosions, that they believe there is much more to the story then we've been told. I don't think the official investigations have told us the complete truth. They haven't even told us half the truth. And so I support, and I hope, you know, if there's a new administration or somebody could open up a new investigation of this before we get too far away from it, to find out the whole truth. Let me just give you one thing that has—I've asked for for a long time. I've filmed before, down at the Pentagon, before 9/11. There's got to be at least 100 video cameras ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They've got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come we haven't seen the straight—I'm not talking about stop-action photos, I'm talking about the video. I want to see the video, I want to see 100 videos that exist of this. Why don't they want us to see that plane coming into the building? Because, you know, if you know anything about flying a plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're in the river. To hit a building that's only 5 stories high that expertly, I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and you should demand that that tape is released.
REPORTER: The idea that the hole is about 8 feet wide...
MOORE: See, I'm not very good at the physics and all that. But believe me, the questions need to be asked.
REPORTER: So you have a lot of unanswered questions.
MOORE: Oh, and I intend in my own way to find some answers. So, thank you for whatever you're doing.
I used to say that 9/11 is for my generation what JFK's assasination was to my parent's. I had no idea that that would mean that it had to include having an "inside job" conspiracy as well.
I guess if Oliver Stone won't do it somebody's go to!
I wouldn't read too much into MM's comments, he says whatever his admirers want to hear.
The only principle he seems to follow was articulated in the title of his "Stupid White Men" book - if business people believe something then it must be evil. Thankfully that principle won't get you too far these days although he's probably making the most out of it.
What is it with liberals and documentaries? Can it really be they don't get enough "free" NPR that they have to go pay money to hear someone regurgitate "facts" they already believe?
Documentaries = liberal church
Moore and Limbaugh in an eating contest. When they both finish, we kick them in the stomach like the fat guy in Se7en.
(By the way, the world record for eating mayonnaise is held by Oleg Zhornitskiy; he ate a gallon in 8 minutes.)
While I don't think 9/11 was an inside job, it certainly might have been. I don't see how we can suddenly assume that the government is being 100% straight with us on this one.
I'm struck by how similar the thinking is of conspiracy nuts like Moore and creationists/ID proponents. There's a kind of infantile view of the world with both.
The lesson learned from 9/11: All the biggest targets are government-built projects. Stay out of government facilities and you've got a much better chance of being safe. Renew your driver's license over the web if you can.
Because, you know, if you know anything about flying a plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're in the river. To hit a building [runway] that's only 5 stories high [a few feet wide] that expertly, I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and you should demand that that tape is released.
While I don't think 9/11 was an inside job, it certainly might have been. I don't see how we can suddenly assume that the government is being 100% straight with us on this one.
Because, Dan T., this is the government that we elected. If we thought they were hiding something, we could simply vote them out.
Are you implying that the same government that you'd trust to decide what people eat, drink, smoke, watch on TV, or otherwise amuse themselves might not be 100% honest?
I'm struck by how similar the thinking is of conspiracy nuts like Moore and creationists/ID proponents. There's a kind of infantile view of the world with both.
Yeah, I heard some bozo the other day talking crazy about how the CIA was running secret prisons in Europe...oh wait, nevermind...
Because all those clips I saw on the TV news on 9/11 of planes actually flying into buildings were obviously faked -- including the shots right afterwards of plane-shaped holes in the buildings.
I don't see how we can suddenly assume that the government is being 100% straight with us on this one.
We don't and didn't. We dissected the record and found out that the government missed a lot of warning signs. But an "inside job"? None of the conspiracy theories has stood up to logical or scientific evidence. In fact, every one of them has been roundly debunked. Read Popular Mechanics.
Considering that the current administration can't even cover up a plot to can a couple of US attorneys, you really have to be a retard to think they could have had anything to do with 9/11 or even covered up major facts about it and kept up the ruse for 6 years... No offense to retards....
Because, you know, if you know anything about flying a plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're in the river.
I'm not a pilot, but I spent many years building simulators. An air-transport aircraft in a landing configuration isn't all that hard to point at a target so long as you are not worried about a smooth landing and roll-out.
"Because all those clips I saw on the TV news on 9/11 of planes actually flying into buildings were obviously faked -- including the shots right afterwards of plane-shaped holes in the buildings."
Don't you know??? Jew Bush in conjunction with the Five J00w Bankers of the New World Order set up a hologram on the International Space Station which made it appear there were planes.
Because, you know, if you know anything about flying a plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're in the river. To hit a building that's only 5 stories high that expertly, I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and you should demand that that tape is released.
Airline pilots don’t seem to have too much trouble hitting the end of a runway, and they must do so at a precise landing angle and at minimum speed and without any do-overs and starting the first time they try.
While I don't think 9/11 was an inside job, it certainly might have been. I don't see how we can suddenly assume that the government is being 100% straight with us on this one.
But, Dan T, you believe the U.S. government is competent enough to set up a conspiracy involving at least dozens of people and keep it a secret for half-a-dozen years. We libertarians don’t.
What's more frightening - that our government is involved in a murderous hoax, or that a group of random thugs could bring off something so audacious? Both count as conspiracy theories, by the way - it's just that the conspirators are different, and one theory supposes an all-powerful organization controlling our lives while the other supposes chaos and uncertainty at every turn.
Because, you know, if you know anything about flying a plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're in the river.
That's it! In flight refueling is impossible and must be part of some government misinformation campaign. The Blue Angels shows are all done with smoke and mirrors. MM is becoming a parody of himself.
Like so many human conflicts—especially ones over group identity and tribal values, which is what the liberal v. conservative divide within the two-party context mostly is—arguments both within this movie [Fahrenheit 9/11] and between it and its detractors swirl not so much around verifiable specific facts but around overarching narratives and assumptions about motives. What was Bush thinking as he was told about the Twin Tower attacks while entertaining a room full of kids? What were the real motives behind attacking Iraq? (Little noted regarding this fiercely anti-Bush foreign policy film is the fact that the words "neocon" and "Israel" are not, in my memory, uttered once, and Moore is nowhere gonzo enough to engage in any specific conspiracy theorizing, as opposed to weirdly suggestive "links.") Are the financial links between the Bush family and Saudi interests, between the Carlyle Group and weapons manufacturers, between oil companies, pipeline schemes, and the war in Afghanistan, actually dispositive about the decisions the U.S. government has made, before and after 9/11?
Well, I guess it's possible, but this movie comes nowhere close to proving it, or even shedding light down the paths one would have to walk to begin trying to prove it. I'd like to be able to pay the movie the compliment of saying that even by bringing such issues to the table, Moore has done a public service—a little public choice analysis when applied to government actions, whether domestic or foreign, is always welcome and should never be dismissed out of hand as "conspiracy mongering."
Considering that the current administration can't even cover up a plot to can a couple of US attorneys, you really have to be a retard to think they could have had anything to do with 9/11 or even covered up major facts about it and kept up the ruse for 6 years... No offense to retards....
We couldn't keep the atom bomb secret for two years. Conspiacy nuts give WAY too much credit to the government for competence.
While I certainly don't believe 9/11 was masterminded by our own government, I completely sympathize with the theorists who suggest as much. These people see real fallacies in the official story and they jump to conclusions because of that. Most of their theories are wrong I'm sure, but I want the same questions answered that they do. One question stands out the most for me: Why don't they release footage of the plane hitting the pentagon? WHY? Give me one good reason they should not release at least some footage showing that plane. Seriously, if they did, it would take all the wind out of these people's sails.
He wants more video of the Pentagon crash? The physical evidence on site, such as the black box, an engine inside the building, the dead passengers, is not enough?
I'm sure Michael Moore wants to investigate 9/11 again and again, only stopping when it's clear that Bush and Rove and Cheney did it all.
Yes, the plane that hit the Pentagon was traveling far faster than planes do when they land. I think that it was around 400 mph based on FAA reports. When it flew over my head, I'm sure that it was traveling far faster than planes do when I've watched them land at Reagan National. The initial hole in the Pentagon (before the upper floors collapsed) went from the ground to just beloww the top two floors. Despite hundreds of witnesses like me and video evidence, somehow idiots still think that the simplest explanation must not be true.
Firefighters told Moore they heard explosions.
Since it is physically impossible for two enormous fireballs to come into contact with any number of flammable materials and create random explosions, I say this case is closed. I'm off to the Loose Change site to hang with people who aren't afraid of the truth. Peace.
You are glad that the videos (other than a couple of stills from one camera) have not been released because?
I mean, I think the plane hit the Pentagon, but I can't figure out what they are trying to hide. Presence of anti-aircraft guns? Absence of anti-aircraft guns? The true flight performance capabilities of passenger jets?
In the case of the Pentagon, I think the most likely thing is that they are trying to get us used to the idea that we don't get to see government and gov't confiscated footage, even when a big national tragedy happens. If that is the true "conspiracy theory" here, I also think it stinks.
The only thing more devastating to Michael Moore's credibiilty would be if he released five or six half-baked documentaries full of distortions and plays to emotion.
F the Bush Administration.
That being said, while I have seen neither Fahrenheit 9/11 nor Loose Change (even know I know the guys who made it), I don't think the US government did it themselves because that would hardly make sense if you believe that we periodically stop planned terrorist attacks.
I mean, really, isn't it EASIER to just LET someone else do it and not have to deal with the hassle of covering it up?
PCAS
Popular Mechanic's? Isn't that the publication organ of the international workers of the world united we stand conspiracy? When I want to read half assed nonsense about the world I come to these electronic pages, if I want to find out how to do a brake job, then & only then do I go to Popular Mechanics.
You are glad that the videos (other than a couple of stills from one camera) have not been released because?
i don't think "glad" is the term. i don't see the need. there's an airplane stuck in the pentagon. there were witnesses on the ground and in the plane. what need is there for even more evidence of what we already know happened?
2. Why were none of them shot down by the air defenses (both air and ground based)?
this ain't the cold war of the 1950s. we don't have nike sites and continental CAPs 24 hours a day.
Why were none of them shot down by the air defenses (both air and ground based)?
I know there are hundreds of anti-aircraft gun stationed all over Manhattan, but as luck would have it the gunners were all on a smoke break.
IIRC, there were fighters scrambled and on the way to intercept Flight 93 when it crashed. The other three attacks came too close together for anyone to have a chance to react.
There is no way this administration could have pulled off 9/11. No way. (I still don't quite get how Bush could be such a stupid idiot and an evil genius at the same time. Alas. Such is the bewildering workings of the (il)liberal mind.)
No administration could pull it off under the microscope of the US presidency.
Why, poor Bill couldn't even get a little sumthin'-sumthin' without being found out!
Michael Moore is a Leni Riefenstahl wannabe. Sadly for him, she was, and always will be the shit when it comes to political propaganda films.
I can see why MM wants socialized medicine. His morbid obesity is gonna cost him plenty, if it hasn't already.
I know you all hate Michael Moore and all, but there's really not that much that should be controversial in what he actually says, above, which (as a review) is thus:
A) He'd like to see a full investigation of the events surrounding 9/11, as he feels that the ones thufar have been insufficient, and he has met others who similarly feel that the investigations thusfar have been insufficient.
B) He'd like to see video footage that we all have great cause to assume exists, and yet which none of us has ever been shown, for reasons none of us seems to understand.
C) It's hard to steer a plane, at 500 mph, into the side of a 5-story-tall building. (Note, by the way, that jetliners land at about 150 mph).
Is any of those three statements really, truly beyond the pale?
Can y'all put the ad hominems aside for the briefest of moments? And, yes, I know he was answering a question posed by someone who believes that "9/11 was an inside job," but perhaps y'all could shelve your Association fallacies for a moment, too, when evaluating the actual statements made above.
What is it with liberals and documentaries? Can it really be they don't get enough "free" NPR that they have to go pay money to hear someone regurgitate "facts" they already believe?
Liberals : documentaries :: conservatives : talk radio
wow, I don't even know what those acronyms mean, but I'm guessing "let it happen on purpose" and "make it happen on purpose." Is that right?
I'm only providing an argument against the MIHOP theory on the grounds that it's more difficult than it needs to be. I'm not making any claims about the liklihood of the administration having LIHOP.
I don't see anything that MM is saying that is controversial. In fact, many of the things he is saying sound similar to Ron Paul. I think the problem for this crowd is the messenger. You hate MM so anything he says will be met with derision and disdain.
But ultimately he was saying that the government hasn't done a thorough investigation and that they have been rather protective of any footage/info about what happened that day.
OH THE HORROR of someone speculating that the government hasn't been completely forthcoming.
The Ron Paul campaign has officially told Truthers to STFU! Not in those harsh words, of course, but they did strongly urge that the message of the Ron Paul campaign to be that of the Ron Paul campaign. Check all other agendas at the door.
p.s. Is the government covering something up about 9/11? Yes! They're covering their incompetent asses! This is the same incompetent government that bungled the planting of WMDs in Iraq.
The man clearly knows his key demographic. (BTW, why does he think security cameras watch the sky all day? Are New York and D.C. plagued by flying petty criminals?)
Seriously, what % of his stuff do you think he even believes himself? His career is mostly a scam to make himself rich off the passionately gullible.
A) You could defend the sufficiency of the investigations thusfar undergone.
B) You could explain why no video footage has been released.
C) You could say, "I agree with Michael Moore that it must be exceptionally difficult to steer a plane, at 500 mph, into the side of a 5-story-tall building," (which, I assume, is the rough translation of "duh").
Or, possibly, you (and David Weigel) could've just ignored the whole thing.
Any of the above would've been a more reasonable, logical course than resorting to the long stream of ad hominems and Association fallacies of which this comment thread is composed.
C) You could say, "I agree with Michael Moore that it must be exceptionally difficult to steer a plane, at 500 mph, into the side of a 5-story-tall building," (which, I assume, is the rough translation of "duh").
Isn't the Pentagon the largest office building in he world?
The-administration-let-it-happen-on-purpose* assertions were also made about the sinking of the Lusitania and about Pearl Harbor. AFAIK, in all the decades since those events, no solid evidence has been found to support those theories.
Not that such theories must always be false. But they do seem to accompany attacks that result in U.S. declarations of war, and they have not previously panned out.
*By which I mean "the administration had the opporunity to prevent the attack and elected not to," as opposed to "the administration could have prevented the attack if the administration were not incompetent or negligent."
"The man clearly knows his key demographic. (BTW, why does he think security cameras watch the sky all day? Are New York and D.C. plagued by flying petty criminals?)"
TallDave,
He does not appear to believe that security cameras watch the sky all day.
He does appear to believe that security cameras watch the Pentagon all day.
Is that such a crazy, improbable thing to believe?
OH THE HORROR of someone speculating that the government hasn't been completely forthcoming.
Dunno about you, but I operate under that assumption as SOP.
That the guvmint could competently carry out such a event and leave behind no clear evidence as to its complicity, and do it with such precision (and convince sooooo many eyewitnesses)...now THAT's a conspiracy theory.
"Isn't the Pentagon the largest office building in he world?"
It may, perhaps, be. But it is not the *tallest* office building in the world, and was, purportedly, hit from the side, at 400-500 mph.
The length and width of the Pentagon, it would seem, should be immaterial to the difficulty (or ease) of hitting a 5-story high building with a Boeing 757 at 400-500 mph.
this ain't the cold war of the 1950s. we don't have nike sites and continental CAPs 24 hours a day.
1. I don't know about those defense systems specifically, but I think the US has air defense systems capable of shooting down slow planes over US airspace on very short notice. I imagine that these days surface to air missiles are the main thing. They are probably smaller than anti-aircraft guns, and more discreet.
2. I think those defense systems are normally operational 24/7, Russkies or no Russkies.
3. While you may not believe my guess in points 1 & 2, I don't think you have hard evidence to disprove it.
4. It would take an investigation to really say one way or the other. there should be an investigation, a real one, so that we can say one way or the other.
5. I am not very worried about a repeat of 9/11 at all. I still do think there could be an airplane attack of some type where the ability to shoot down planes (any planes, not just certain planes) in a timely fashion could save lives, perhaps even millions of US citizen lives. Therefore, an investigation of this aspect of 9/11 is worthy of resource allocation.
Also, planes seem to manage to hit runways thousands of times a day without much trouble. A runway is a considerably narrower target than the WTC or Pentagon, and landing intact is obviously considerably harder than just crashing into something.
The length and width of the Pentagon, it would seem, should be immaterial to the difficulty (or ease) of hitting a 5-story high building with a Boeing 757 at 400-500 mph.
Is there some reason it would have been important to hit the side, rather than the center?
Could the fact that he hit the side be an indication that it almost missed the intended target?
(Not that any of this would justify the failure to release footage.)
"If they're pointing at the Pentagon itself, take a guess at their framerate and how many frames a plane hitting the building would appear in. How many cameras do you suppose are set up at the proper angles and framerates to monitor incoming planes?"
Now we're getting somewhere! You're the first person I, personally, have heard theorize that the Pentagon security cameras have a low frame-rate, and thus any security footage existant would feature the plane in very few frames. And you're certainly the first person on this thread to offer such a theory.
That could very well be the explanation. Seriously.
That said, it might help if the actual video footage (low frame rate and all) were released to you and me, rather than simple still photos. Then we could, maybe, confirm your hypothesis.
Is it so unreasonable to ask that this video footage (which belongs to the public) be released to the public?
"Also, planes seem to manage to hit runways thousands of times a day without much trouble. A runway is a considerably narrower target than the WTC or Pentagon, and landing intact is obviously considerably harder than just crashing into something."
As mentioned several times above, jetliners land on runways at about 150 mph.
The 757 purportedly hit the Pentagon at 400-500 mph.
"Is there some reason it would have been important to hit the side, rather than the center? Could the fact that he hit the side be an indication that it almost missed the intended target?"
I dunno. Maybe. It's possible that we may have more evidence with which to answer these questions if the Pentagon would release the video footage of the impact. If only it would do so.
They have released the gate camera footage. It shows exactly what you'd expect: a couple frames with the plane in low resolution. Here's one of a million sites that has the frames.
"To hit a building that's only 5 stories high that expertly, I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and you should demand that that tape is released."
That's just deliberately misleading fodder for his key demo. Given that he's built a career on deceptive video edits pandering to a certain point of view, it's overwhelmingly likely he already knows there's no answers there.
I dunno. Maybe. It's possible that we may have more evidence with which to answer these questions if the Pentagon would release the video footage of the impact. If only it would do so.
You just wanna see that video, dontcha? I know your type.
This is not the anti-Michael Moore smoking gun. He is skeptical that the government of President George W. Bush tells the truth and says to people who PRETEND to know more, I hope there is an investigation. Whether one hates Moore, loves him, or simply has not made up there mind, he seems to be acting with REASON, if not the web magazine then Reason itself.
The 757 purportedly hit the Pentagon at 400-500 mph
According to who? The simulations were based on around 350mph. That means they hit a target at least twice as wide as a runway going about twice as fast as landing speed. Sounds pretty easy.
Those of you calling for more investigations, although I'm not sure what a "real" investigation is, it seems to me you are assuming there is evidence--and significant evidence--not yet seen by the 9/11 commission. Do any of you have any evidence at all that leads you to believe this is the case?
Again, as I said before, and I've debated this issue for 5 years over at Fark, and I've read all the literature, when are we going to stop? When we achieve a conclusion that meets everybody's agenda? When we know 100 percent of everythign that happened down to the second? When?
I agree with Patrick Meighan from Venice, CA. Everyone here is acting like there's some prior reason to be sceptical of what MM is saying. It's not like there's any record or documentation that might challenge his credibility.
"They have released the gate camera footage. It shows exactly what you'd expect: a couple frames with the plane in low resolution. Here's one of a million sites that has the frames."
I don't see video there. I see a few still frames. Where's the video footage that includes those frames?
They also confiscated camera footage from the gas station across the street. Why would they have done that?
Again, I really believe 18 or 19 muslim radicals did this. But I want to know why they don't release that footage. It would put an end to most if not all of this conspiracy crap.
Again, as I said before, and I've debated this issue for 5 years over at Fark, and I've read all the literature, when are we going to stop? When we achieve a conclusion that meets everybody's agenda? When we know 100 percent of everythign that happened down to the second? When?
I dunno, but I would be a JFK conspiracist if they were still sitting on the Zapruder film. They aren't so I am not.
Consider this: MM believes that the target of the plane was to hit the 50 foot facade of the Pentagon. He is too clever by half.
Wouldn't the terrorist's purpose be served if the plane were to hit ANY part of the Pentagon? Ground-Zero Cafe? The far side, from inner-ring, out? When you think of it that way, the Pentagon is one whopping big target.
Their purpose is served whether they drill the plane through the front steps, of if they crash it through the roof, across the center, and into the other side.
As for the security cameras, think two things: 1. They are watching ground approaches, not the air.
2. Ever think the room holding the video tapes might have been severely damaged?
3. Would YOU reveal where your security cameras were?
4. Maybe they shut off a lot of them, given the renovation work at that part of the building (think lots of heavy equipment tearing up the ground)
Occam's razor. Use it, or be left bleeding on the side of the road.
They also confiscated camera footage from the gas station across the street. Why would they have done that?
Some people are possible to satisfy.
And they did release that gas station video recently, if I recall correctly. It reveals nothing that contradicts the "official story," but it hasn't shut up the truthers.
And one last thing. Who cares about the video? Video can be faked. There were parts of the airplane and the people found in the pentagon. The black box was right there. What could video from some unacknowledged pentagon camera possibly change?
Anyone who watched them fight the fire at the Pentagon would know that he hit in a good location for the fire fighters. The fire took many hours to control as it spread into the roof. If he'd crashed the plane into the middle, controlling the fire would have been far more difficult. I would guess, based upon the fact that he took out some street lights along 395, he came very close to crashing short of the building.
I fail to see what the government would have to gain by staging an airplane attack on the Pentagon given that we all saw, in graphic detail, the very real airplane attack that took place at the World Trade Center. Is an attack on the Pentagon (a legitimate military target) really supposed to generate any extra moral outrage that wasn't already achieved with the twin towers (two skyscrapers full of civilians).
Seriously, if you are an evil government planning to turn a phony attack into an excuse to go to war, don't you think you would choose a target people are a bit more sympathetic towards than the Pentagon?
C) It's hard to steer a plane, at 500 mph, into the side of a 5-story-tall building. (Note, by the way, that jetliners land at about 150 mph).
Please find your nearest FBO and pay $100 for an orientation flight to dispel your ignorance of flying.
It is far easier to control a plane at maximum performance than at stall speeds. Jetliners land at 150mph because runways are short, not because it is easier for the pilots.
"Those of you calling for more investigations, although I'm not sure what a "real" investigation is, it seems to me you are assuming there is evidence--and significant evidence--not yet seen by the 9/11 commission. Do any of you have any evidence at all that leads you to believe this is the case?"
Speaking only for myself, I'd simply like to see an investigation of the events of 9/11 that's not conducted by appointees of the people who benefitted (politically) the very most by the events of 9/11.
I have no evidence that any element of our government had any involvement (passive or active) in the events of 9/11, nor that anything occurred on or around 9/11 that differs from the generally accepted narrative: that several Saudis and a few Egyptians hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania, having been sent on that mission by al Qaeda, and that the attack was a complete surprise to our administration. In fact, that's what I, personally, happen to believe. But until there's an official investigation by folks who did not happen to be appointed by those who benefitted (politically) the very most by the events of 9/11, I can't bring myself to certainty on that score, and am bound, as an independent-thinking citizen, to be (at the very least) curious.
GWB our president can produce WMD or UBL but he can pull of the biggest terrorist attack in world history with all the ppl in the state and defense and CIA that constantly leaking information helping the people that attacked us.
I don't think the footage from the gas station was released as you say. I searched for it and I couldn't find it and I'm sure if it had been released i could find some mention of it. From what I've read, at least 80 cameras should have caught this on tape.
In response to the argument about black box and parts found at pentagon: Once again, why not release the tape or even transcripts from that black box? And i can't find any credible evidence about parts being found. They covered up with tarps any parts they hauled off, and they will not show any pictures of those parts. Again, why be secretive? It would be so easy to dispell the myths about 911, either release the tapes from the black box, release some footage showing the plane hit the building, or show us pictures of airplane parts that can be positively identified.
"REPORTER: And we know that 9/11 was an inside job.
MOORE: Right.
That's not controversial?"
Decontextualized (as you've done above), it's controversial. In context, it was clearly a case of Michael Moore acknowledging the "reporter"'s line of thought, rather than agreeing with the "reporter"'s statement.
If you read the whole of the quoted piece, Michael Moore is clearly calling for further investigations and declaring that there are, in his view, questions that need to be answered, NOT that he *has* answered the questions, and the answer(s) is/are that 9/11 was an inside job.
"I fail to see what the government would have to gain by staging an airplane attack on the Pentagon given that we all saw, in graphic detail, the very real airplane attack that took place at the World Trade Center."
Though it's not my belief that the Pentagon attack was staged (as I said above, I believe it was hit by a Boeing 757 flown by an al Qaeda operative, just like you do), my understanding of the theory advanced by those who *do* believe that it was staged is that, in the wake of the horrific attacks on the WTC, the Boeing 757 filled with Americans was intentionally shot down by a U.S. military aircraft just off the Eastern Seaboard, and that the Pentagon was subsequently targeted by a U.S. missile and credited an another al Qaeda airplane attack, in order to prevent potential domestic outrage.
Again, it's not my theory, but it's my understanding of their theory.
"""I mean, I think the plane hit the Pentagon, but I can't figure out what they are trying to hide. Presence of anti-aircraft guns? Absence of anti-aircraft guns? The true flight performance capabilities of passenger jets?
In the case of the Pentagon, I think the most likely thing is that they are trying to get us used to the idea that we don't get to see government and gov't confiscated footage, even when a big national tragedy happens. If that is the true "conspiracy theory" here, I also think it stinks."""
As if they are saying, "just believe us", which has been this administration's mantra all along. That's why I agree with Dan T's first post. If you don't believe the government is honest with us anyway. Why start now? That doesn't mean you accept a conspiracy. I'm a believer of the obvious, 19 guys hijacked planes and flew then into buildings, and in one case, the ground. But I don't believe much of anything coming out of this administration's mouth, or previous ones for that matter.
I know people who will tell you that everyone in government lies, and in the same breath tell you Bush has never lied. I guess they want to believe the status quo of government lying does not apply to the people they like.
""" What could video from some unacknowledged pentagon camera possibly change?"""
It would shut up the people claiming it wasn't a plane. So the video does have the potential to change something.
There were plenty of eyewitnesses, that's good enough for me, But I guess not for others.
I think Dave W is close to being right. It's part of the new "you don't have the right to see government" agenda so popular with the Bush admin.
if you know anything about flying a plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're in the river. To hit a building that's only 5 stories high that expertly, I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and you should demand that that tape is released.
This is particularly funny given that guided missiles steered by an operator using real-time video have been used as anti-tank weapons, which involves not only hitting a much smaller target than a building that is 5 stories tall and has a 29 acre footprint, but one that is often moving. Although I do think most of those bad boys are travelling at around 300 mph after the main engine kicks in.
I've finally figured it out! Dan T is just Oliver Stone on a mescaline binge.
That explains everything.
Eureka wins the prize for most plausible conspiracy theory articulated in the thread.
What could video from some unacknowledged pentagon camera possibly change?
Like I said above, I think they are withholding video (and/or releasing video very slowly) just to f**k with people. Same reason they withheld the Zapruder film -- to show who is in charge here.
That said, what could the video POSSIBLY show? Off the top of my head: another aircraft in the vicinity, say an F-16. a soldier standing on the lawn with a surface to air missile launcher, but not making any attempt to fire it at the approaching jet. a soldier attempting to fire at the approach jet, but having her (shoddy) surface to air missile launcher fail to fire due to shoddy workmanship. A guard running for cover instead of for an alarm switch. There are many incriminating and/or embarrassing possibilities. Not that any of these possibilities are true, but if any one of these possibilities were true, then it would change our perception of 9/11 in significant ways.
I'm confused about a couple things. First, if 9/11 was a conspiracy, why has Bin Laden taken credit for it? Secondly, if Bush knew it was going to happen, why, when informed during his appearance at the elementary school, did he not heroically snap into action instead of sitting there looking like a deer in headlights?
Now we're getting somewhere! You're the first person I, personally, have heard theorize that the Pentagon security cameras have a low frame-rate, and thus any security footage existant would feature the plane in very few frames. And you're certainly the first person on this thread to offer such a theory.
I recall making similar arguments in a similar thread weeks (months?) ago, but I'm pretty sure it was after the thread was way down the page.
It's speculation about the quality of the security cameras, but it's at least very reasonable speculation. Frame rate, velocity of the object, and field of view of the camera (and at what focal depth the impact area was) are all variables that can tell you the maximum number of frames of video with an aircraft were even POSSIBLE to have. At that time, most security cameras (used for perimeter security) didn't NEED to have high frame rates so most didn't. I don't know if this applies to the Pentagon, but I wouldn't doubt it.
Further things complicating number of "good" video frames are focus at distance and resolution, as well as ability to deal with blooming effects (security cameras probably don't deal with them at all).
Michael Moore may be correct that there were 100 cameras looking at the Pentagon. But what he doesn't offer a guess at is how many were looking at the exact right place at the exact right time at a good resolution and a useful distance so that the event would be in non-pixelated focus.
Leland,
thank you. great site with great technical detail. And yes it does definitively show that it was a 757 hit the pentagon.
Like I said in my first and second post, i don't, and never have, believed any of these conspiracy theories; i just can't stand the poor arguments made against them. And I really believe it would be easy for the government to end the argument by releasing footage, voice recorder tapes, and pictures.
Plus I really really wanna see the plane hit the pentagon.
I dunno. Maybe. It's possible that we may have more evidence with which to answer these questions if the Pentagon would release the video footage of the impact. If only it would do so.
"Michael Moore may be correct that there were 100 cameras looking at the Pentagon. But what he doesn't offer a guess at is how many were looking at the exact right place at the exact right time at a good resolution and a useful distance so that the event would be in non-pixelated focus."
Releasing all the video footage (as opposed to individual still frames) from the Pentagon's perimeter on the morning of 9/11 (no matter how poorly framed or poorly resolved they may be) would certainly relieve Michael Moore (and you, and me, and everyone) from having to make such guesses.
Releasing *no* video footage from the Pentagon's perimeter on the morning of 9/11 seems to encourage us to make such guesses.
You know, it really is hilarious at some level. Leftoids hem and haw about how we don't know if a plane struck the Pentagon because the government won't release video footage. Then the video footage is released and ... Leftoids hem and haw about how we don't know if a plane struck the Pentagon because the government won't release video footage.
One wonders if they simply aren't paying attention or if they don't want to pay attention because it might disturb (or shatter) their preconceived notions.
Of course, it doesn't help that Michael Moore is a lying cad, which has been demonstrated more than once. Still, "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice..."
No problem. I can't say I want to see the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon (again!), but it's out there. I do think we haven't heard the full story, but I don't think the full truth is protected by a hidden conspiracy.
Keep in mind that even the evening of 9/11, many news organizations were already censoring video, because the images were considered too graphic. Within a month, many organizations decried the continual showing of 9/11 video because it would continue to "enrage" Americans. The conspiracy to hide information is obvious and hardly starts within the government.
Also being in the simulator business, I know that it's one hell of a lot easier to control a plane at 300-500 kts. as opposed to 150 kts. Especially an airliner.
If that thing has an autopilot worth a damn, it's also not hard to pick a spot out on a huge, wide building to hit from several miles out. Minor corrections would be needed, but the plane could pretty much fly itself there.
"You mean like the video found in this story: US releases 9/11 Pentagon video. Note: this story is more than a year old."
Thanks, Hand. Unfortunately, that particular camera is framed such that the plane (assuming, of course, that it's a plane) passes through frame so quickly as to be utterly indiscernable as a plane.
Were there any other security video cameras filming around the Pentagon that morning? May we please see the video footage from each of the other cameras on the perimeter? If not, then why not?
Releasing all the video footage (as opposed to individual still frames) from the Pentagon's perimeter on the morning of 9/11
Now we get to the agenda. The Pentagon should release all video of the perimeter for the day? Why the entire perimeter? Do you need to know the placement of all security cameras? Who goes in and out during the day and where they go in and out? What patrols exists and when they operate? How personnel and patrols respond to attacks?
You may not want that information, but enemies of the country would love that information bonanza. Sure, cameras can be moved, personnel changed, patrols modified, but that's expensive. You don't need the entire perimeter of the Pentagon for the entire day of 9/11. It would take you months to view it all, and it would be useless to you.
it seems to me you are assuming there is evidence--and significant evidence--not yet seen by the 9/11 commission. Do any of you have any evidence at all that leads you to believe this is the case?
Once again, why not release the tape or even transcripts from that black box?
Didn't one of the guys who had access to the tape actually physically destroy it and throw it in a dumpster before anyone else could have access to it. I don't remember it now, but I am pretty sure I read a story about that and he had no good justification of it.
"If that thing has an autopilot worth a damn, it's also not hard to pick a spot out on a huge, wide building to hit from several miles out. Minor corrections would be needed, but the plane could pretty much fly itself there."
Perhaps. Have we been told if the autopilot was on or not?
If we have not been told, is that not something we deserve to know?
Releasing all the video footage (as opposed to individual still frames) from the Pentagon's perimeter on the morning of 9/11 (no matter how poorly framed or poorly resolved they may be) would certainly relieve Michael Moore (and you, and me, and everyone) from having to make such guesses.
As I recall, those "individual still frames" were released that way because they were most likely CONSECUTIVE frames - it WAS the video, just in still form. This lends to the theory that the frame rates weren't worth a shit.
hand of vecna,
wanting the government to release more footage does not make me or anyone else a 'leftoid'. I am as conservative as they come. I'm not saying that the footage they did release proves it wasn't a plane, but you act as if that footage should put an end to the argument. You really can't tell why that footage raises more questions than it answers? Have some empathy here buddy, it's very easy to understand why that footage lends credibility to the conspiracy theorists.
At least six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, 2001, made a tape recording a few hours later describing the events, but the tape was destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it, the Transportation Department said Thursday.
Perhaps. Have we been told if the autopilot was on or not?
If we have not been told, is that not something we deserve to know?
The autopilot comment was simply a commentary on how fucking easy it is to control a jetliner to hit a monstrous building at speed. I don't know that the autopilot was on, and frankly it doesn't matter one bit.
These guys were trained to fly airliners. Anyone with basic training would be able to fly manually or automatically into such a target. Much of one's training comes in learning to use the autopilot and especially the avionics. Basic flying is easy.
"Now we get to the agenda. The Pentagon should release all video of the perimeter for the day?"
Not for the whole day. For the morning of 9/11, say 10 minutes prior to impact and 10 minutes following.
"Why the entire perimeter?"
Because it would relieve me (and many other Americans) of any residual suspicion that my government is hiding the truth from me.
"You may not want that information, but enemies of the country would love that information bonanza. Sure, cameras can be moved, personnel changed, patrols modified, but that's expensive."
The Pentagon spends more than $500,000,000,000.00 per year. I really believe that they can afford to move some cameras.
"You don't need the entire perimeter of the Pentagon for the entire day of 9/11. It would take you months to view it all, and it would be useless to you."
As an independent and free-thinking citizen, I'm not particularly interested in your assessment of what information I do and don't need.
ecause, you know, if you know anything about flying a plane, if you're going 500 mph, if you're off by that much, you're in the river. To hit a building [runway] that's only 5 stories high [a few feet wide] that expertly, I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and you should demand that that tape is released
Commercial Aircraft:
1) Don't land at 500 mph
2) Can land on the runway plus or minus SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET and still be okay
3) Are landed by pilots with hundreds of hours of training and not by terrorists with no training in landing (or landing in ground effect)
4) Have VASI lights, glide slope indicators, precision approach aids, not to mention altimeters, gps, radar, etc.
Lots of military pilots have said that hitting the pentagon at that speed and given the tight overhead spiral was pretty damned tricky flying.
But I appreciate the commenters at ad hominem for schooling us all. You guys are about as accurate as the folks at lgf and freerepublic.
But they are one hell of a lot easier to maneuver at that speed, thus, course corrections are a much, much more simple matter than when your AOA is in the neighborhood of 15 degrees.
2) Can land on the runway plus or minus SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET and still be okay
Yeah, so?
3) Are landed by pilots with hundreds of hours of training and not by terrorists with no training in landing (or landing in ground effect)
But we're not talking about landing, are we? We're also talking about terrorists who, it was widely acknowledged, learned to fly EXPLICITLY without learning to land.
Ground effect doesn't do much with a small AOA, nose level or low and at speed.
4) Have VASI lights, glide slope indicators, precision approach aids, not to mention altimeters, gps, radar, etc.
You mean the terrorists flew without altimeters and radar on board? Wow.
The approach aids help the pilot maintain optimal glide slope in the high AOA, low speed conditions of landing. They can still land the thing without all that and anyone can certainly hit a massive target like the Pentagon without VASI, PAPI or a localizer.
2) Can land on the runway plus or minus SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET and still be okay
Yeah, so?
I was responding to the comment above that says if you can land on a runway you can hit a 5 story building.
And nothing in the popular mechanics debunking addresses the issue of how easy or hard it was to hit the pentagon or fly that aircraft.
I am not arguing that the pentagon was not hit by a 757, I am saying all you freepers and lgfers and weigel here at ad-hominem don't have a shred of the authority you claim or even a reasonable understanding of the situation.
You mean the terrorists flew without altimeters and radar on board? Wow.
I am saying that terrorists that did not train in landings might find it hard to land on a runway that has many landing aids much less hit the broadside of a building that has no landing aids.
I am not arguing that the pentagon was not hit by a 757, I am saying all you freepers and lgfers and weigel here at ad-hominem don't have a shred of the authority you claim or even a reasonable understanding of the situation.
I'm an aerospace engineer with flight time in multiple types and simulators. What's your understanding of the flying characteristics of airplanes, Jerry? Of was your comment just an adhominem attack made by a hypocrit?
I was responding to the comment above that says if you can land on a runway you can hit a 5 story building.
And my response to that is "no fucking duh". Because it's way fucking easier to do the latter than the former to someone with no landing training.
And nothing in the popular mechanics debunking addresses the issue of how easy or hard it was to hit the pentagon or fly that aircraft.
That's probably right. But I'm not the one putting it forth as such. I'm not so sure anyone who HAS brought it up claimed it was supporting the ease of flying a 757. I'm pretty sure it's to address other points.
I am not arguing that the pentagon was not hit by a 757, I am saying all you freepers and lgfers and weigel here at ad-hominem...
I love the taste of Irony in the evening.
...don't have a shred of the authority you claim or even a reasonable understanding of the situation.
I beg to differ. You, on the other hand...
I am saying that terrorists that did not train in landings might find it hard to land on a runway that has many landing aids much less hit the broadside of a building that has no landing aids.
And I'm saying, from industry experience and knowledge, it's many, many, many times easier to hit a relatively narrow office building (never mind the colossal Pentagon) at speed than it is to land. Landing takes a LOT of concentration and minor adjustments. Hitting a point at or near the ground that you pick out miles away is much easier when traveling twice or more landing speed.
It would be stupid to release video of the plane hitting the pentagon. Why not just hand out blue prints and engineering data on the defenses of the building so the attackers can do a better job next time. Why put them through all the trouble of analyzing footage?
Some people match Gene Wilder's description of the people living in Rockridge.
Innocent people do NOT hide all the evidence as fast as they can.
Hundred-plus story buildings do NOT
"pancake fall" at the speed of gravity.
Air compression does NOT make squibs twenty floors below.
The melting of iron does NOT produce explosion sounds.
If anyone still believes the "official story" they have a few logic modules missing in their brain.
Top government officials have suggested that American Airlines Flight 77 was originally headed for the White House and possibly circled the Capitol building. CBS News Transportation Correspondent Bob Orr reports that's not what the recorded flight path shows.
Eight minutes before the crash, at 9:30 a.m. EDT, radar tracked the plane as it closed to within 30 miles of Washington. Sources say the hijacked jet continued east at a high speed toward the city, but flew several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House.
At 9:33 the plane crossed the Capitol Beltway and took aim on its military target. But the jet, flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn.
Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.
The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed.
The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph.
Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives.
At the White House Friday, spokesman Ari Fleischer saw it a different way.
"That is not the radar data that we have seen," Fleischer said, adding, "The plane was headed toward the White House."
Moore, Franken, Sheehan, and celebrities Funny Girl, the guy with the phone scalding of his 11 or 12yo daughter, Rosie are the faces of the democratic party, and yuck.
A landing jet would have had much more trouble hitting the building since a landing is a controlled fall and a slow plane loses stability in flight. With wheels up and at speed, the jet remained very stable until it hit the light poles, cars and other stuff on the ground. The plane is about like a mobile home size object hitting. 50 of them could hit a side of the Pentagon without hitting the same hole. So many people saw the airliner go down toward the pentagon, some saw it hit, that it would be a miracle to hire that many actors. Where is the plane and people aboard if it didn't hit the Pentagon? Did it rise up and fly away unseen after the pass? I thought to myself that the plane was hitting the ground as it hit the building. The pilot should have flown into the center of the building, I thought, but then it wouldn't ahve looked so good. If you've seen where jets have flown into mountains there is nothing much left buy little pieces of the body and come big hunks of landing gear. The videos shown back then really were
