Jamie McIntyre Shows Personal Photos of Debris from the Pen

[TRUTH]

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/Jamie-McIntyre-05212006/Jamie-M cIntyre-CNN-5-21-2006.wmv

Transcript:

JAMIE McINTYRE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: There are still people who don't believe a plane really hit the Pentagon on September 11th. I was there, I saw the wreckage, I photographed it with my digital camera. One of the pictures I took shows a yellow fire hose stretched across the heliport surrounded with thousands of shards of metal from the plane. Another shows glass that appeared to be from the cockpit, and another was a part of the fuselage with the colors of American Airlines. In fact, I got arrested that day by an overzealous Pentagon police officer, for taking this particular picture of the Pentagon on fire. He confiscated my camera, but I got it back a few days later. All of the images were intact.

The only pieces left that you can see are small enough --

I was surprised to find that my own words are part of the conspiracy presentation. You can see on the Internet clips of me saying on September 11th, from my own close up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane crashing anywhere near the Pentagon. But I was answering a question, and the point I was making was about an eyewitness who thought a plane crashed near the Pentagon. I was saying no, not near the Pentagon. The only plane that crashed was at the Pentagon.

MALVEAUX: So, do you think finally this conspiracy theory is going to be put to rest?

McINTYRE: No. No, not even a little bit. In fact, I got emails and messages all week, saying how could I accept what the tape showed? The tape doesn't prove anything, they would say. It doesn't look like a plane, and so there are some people who just, no matter what you tell them, they're not going to believe it.

JOHNS: Question from the audience, Jamie.

QUESTION: Hi. I'm Keith Buzby from St. Mary's College in Maryland. I was just curious as to why this footage was not released sooner?

McINTYRE: You know, we filed a freedom of information act, CNN did, back in February of 2002 for the tape, for any tapes that were available, and the government didn't release them. They claimed that they were going to be held as evidence. They were eventually used as evidence in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial. When that trial was over and he was sentenced, that's why they eventually released it. But interestingly enough when it became obvious that the government wasn't going to release the tapes, unofficially, somebody in the government provided me with five key frames from the tape, which we were the first to broadcast back in March of 2002. So we did see those -- a part of those images. But this is the first time we actually got to see the full tape from two different cameras right at the same location. So you know, it's now part of the historical records.

JOHNS: So having your name and your reporting tied up in these conspiracy theories, what goes through your head? Is it disturbing? Are you indifferent about it?

McINTYRE: It's interesting. You go on the Internet and you look at these presentations and they're actually fairly convincing, and people have sent me, for instance, you know, very scholarly analysis of how it would be impossible for someone with the limited experience that these hijackers had to fly a plane at the Pentagon, and it's all very convincing in theory. But the fact is, it did happen, and if this tape was the only evidence we had about what happened, you'd have to say it's inconclusive. You can't tell from the tape. But we have all the other evidence. We know the plane took off. We know the people were on the plane. We know that parts of the plane was recovered. We know that remains were identified. I mean, it's not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's beyond any doubt, but it does show you how these Internet conspiracy theories can be very convincing, and in the absence of other evidence, you'd sometimes don't know what to believe, which is, by the way, what our job is supposed to be as reporters, is to put those things in context, to bring the facts to bear so people can make an intelligent and informed decision, not something that they got from some weird Web site on the Internet.

MALVEAUX: Do you think we're going to get more pictures? And what was it like really to see the images there? Did you have an emotional reaction? Obviously you were there at the day of the attacks.

McINTYRE: I remember the day of the attack. You know, you sort of get into the professional mode where you're doing your job, and I remember it really didn't hit me until the next morning when I got up that next morning and I put -- like a lot of Americans do, put their flag out, decided it was a good day to fly the flag and I remember that's when it really hit me. But I had a little bit of an emotional visceral response from all of the suggestions that it didn't really happen. That it was a cruise missile, or the Pentagon was deliberately blown up by a bomb. Because it's, it's amazing to anyone who was there, and of course, it's insulting to anyone who lost loved ones that day. So that's sort of a visceral reaction to that. And your question about other tapes, there are at least 80 other tapes that the government is holding onto. We're told that they don't really show much, but sources have told us that at least one of the tapes from a security camera at a nearby hotel may have captured the plane in the air. We filed another FOIA for that tape as well and we'll see if they ever release that.

JOHNS: So you also mention that you got locked up on 9/11.

McINTYRE: I was handcuffed briefly by an overzealous Pentagon police officer, who apparently decided that was the day to enforce the ban on photography on the Pentagon grounds. But after he arrested me, he realized there was this other big terrorist thing going on and it really didn't have anything to do with me and he eventually let me go.

JOHNS: The other question is just where was that camera?

McINTYRE: Well, on the side of the Pentagon. Of course the Pentagon has five sides. It was at a checkpoint where cars go through, and there's a little removable barrier, so it was one -- there were two cameras that were focused on basically cars coming in and out, and in some of the tapes, if you go look at them on the web, you'll see cars go by before it happens. And those are the only tapes that the Pentagon has that shows the plane.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/20/tt.01.html

[TRUTH]

Transcript of America Under Attack: Bush Holds Press Briefing," September 11, 2001:

WOODRUFF: Jamie, Aaron was talking earlier -- or one of our correspondence was talking earlier -- I think -- actually, it was Bob Franken -- with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that Boeing 757, the American jet, American Airline jet, landed short of the Pentagon.

Can you give us any better idea of how much of the plane actually impacted the building?

MCINTYRE: 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.

Now, even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed; that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.35.html

[is]

Ive said it before and Ill say it again.

Goddammit!

I really don't know what to make of the pentagon any more. Watching this interview I again got the horrible feeling that we were being set up. Theres NO denying that a video release clearly showing a plane would put the 9/11 truth campaign back to square one.

Is it not possible that the people who planned 9/11 saw the eventuality that they would be found out and thus held onto this caveat? It seems likely.

That said, if there WAS a plane proper, then you really would expect to have seen more evidence of it by now. The pitures of the 'debris' are so inconclusive that it boggles the mind.

I often flirt with the idea of a very small plane packed with explosives, dressed up like a 757 but wasnt, which would account for the mini-debris as well as the eyewitnesses. But such speculation doesnt really get anyone anywhere.

I think those who advise to stay away from the pentagon have got the right idea, obviously there is so much other evidence out there it is pointless to focus on such a spurious detail. But the detail is a rather large one, and is why many people cannot resist debating about it.

I wish I knew what hit the pentagon.

[Ally]

[is]

Wow! Thanks ally, it had been bugging me.

Got the link for how WTC 7 collapsed because God farted on it?

[Ally]

I was under the belief it committed suicide after losing the rest of its family.

[is]

Hmmmmm. This is a really big issue for me this morning, for some reason. I cant let go of it to settle down and do my work!

This McIntyre thing made me think its best to forget the pentagon and that we might be being set up, but the thread below about the A3 skywarrior is interesting - the image is quite convincing, thouh ive never heard of this 'migandi.org'.

its just MINDBOGGLING.

[blackcat]

is

Whatever hit the Pentagon it wasn't a 757 plane. Relax - they can't come up with anything that isn't fake and even if they do that the obvious question will be "why didn't you show this years ago?" They have nothing to show because it was not the 757! Have faith in the evidence.

[Justin]

Well said Blackcat - if some professional pilots don't believe it, I don't. To me the most likely candidate for what flew in is an A3 Sky Warrior dressed up to mimic a 757. And would you really trust a reporter from CNN!?

[is]

Youre prolly right blackcat - i will instead concentrate on my revision until more stuff comes to light. Cheers!

[catfish]

I posted this before but I feel plane or no plane Cheney knew about it!

Revealing evidence pointing to an inside job is shown in Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commision which was ommited from the final report. Here is an extract from that testimony were Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman of the Commision is questioning Mineta:

Hamilton: I want to focus just a moment on the Presidential Operating Emergency Centre, you were there for a good part of the day, I think you were there with the vice president (Cheney). And we had that order given I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft* that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists. Where you there when that order was given?

Mineta: No I was not but I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the pentagon, there was a young man who'd come in and say to the vice president, the plane is fifty miles out, the plane is thirty miles out, and when it got down to, the plane is ten miles out, the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" and the vice president turned, whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well at the time I didn't know what all that meant, and

Hamilton: The flight you're referring to is the?

Mineta: The flight that came into the Pentagon

Hamilton: The Pentagon yeah.

Mineta: And so I was not aware that that discussion had already taken place and, but in listening to the conversation between the young man and the vice president, then at the time I didn't really recognise the significance of that, and then later I heard of the fact that, the airplanes had been scrambled from Langley, to come up to DC, but those planes were still about ten minutes away, and so, then at the time, we heard about the airplane that went into Pensylvania, then I thought, "Oh my God, did we shoot it down?" And then we had to, with the vice president, go through the Pentagon to check that out.

Hamilton: Let me see if I understand, the plane that was headed toward the Pentagon, and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down?

Mineta: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley, or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area so, but I didn't know about the order specifically, other than listening to that other conversation.

Hamilton: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down?

Mineta: Subsequently I found that out.

*wikipedia says Norman gave the order but never mind (edit: Mineta gave the order to ground civilian aircraft)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Mineta

This entire testimony can be watched on video here:
http://www.911truthmovement.org/video/hamilton_win.wmv

Or read about here:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050724164122860

[Garrett Cooke]

Is,

Just to backup Blackcat and Justin. Have faith in the evidence. Ask yourself is this really the best they can do if there really was a large plane at the Pentagon? Are you going to belive McKintyre now when he has had so long to get his story 'correct' or believe his initial on the scene report? I think the initial report was very clear that he saw no large pieces of wreckage and no sign of a plane having crashed into the Pentagon. Do you think he would still have a job with CNN if he had stuck by that story?

My view is that the weakness of the Official Petangon story is seen as a weak point and 'they' are trying hard to discredit the 'conspiracy theories' (aka the probable truth).

We can deal with more video tape evidence as it comes out - don't hold your breath. Note McKintyre saying at the very end of the excert that this tape (i.e. the one just released) is the ONLY one the Petangon have showing the plane.

[Ally]

Looks like Jones is taking a leaf out of McIntyre's flip flopping handbook.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/220506flight77.htm

[Garrett Cooke]

The Paul Joseph Watson article linked above is rubbish. Anyway the pictures look faked to me. I seems like a very half hearted attempt to discredit the Pentagon evidence. What does this say about Alex Jones? Remember IF the F77 theory is correct it was not at a velocity usual for coming in to land. I suggest this: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/simulation.mpeg shows the more likely effect of a low altitude plane at high velocity.

By the way Dave McGowan's site has his very good 911 articles which are worth reading if you haven't. http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com

Garrett

[Andrew Johnson]

Yeah - I thought the latest PP article was inconsequential at best.

Couldn't see the point of it. The Jetwash factor isn't one of the prime pieces of evidence anyway!

[flamesong]

[flamesong]

Additionally, it can be fairly accurately estimated from this photo that the aircraft is at least 55 feet from the ground. The Propaganda Matrix/Prison Planet article claims that the aircraft are passing at an altitude of 20 feet.

The photos that are used to illustrate this have been chosen because they give a distorted perspective. But if an individual on the ground close to the aircraft's shadow in the KLM photo (the sun is overhead as can be seen from the lack of visibly lengthy shadows cast by the people in the photos) or in the top American Airlines photo is used for scale, it would suggest that their altitudes are in the range 50-60 feet also. The aircraft are landing so their speed would likely be between 145 and 165 knots (about 160 to 180 mph) - nothing like the estimated 500 knots (550 mph) which the alleged 757 which allegedly hit the Pentagon was allegedly doing.

There don't seem to be many (if any) photos of aircraft taking off above this beach. There is only one runway on Saint Martin and from my ten years experience working with military aircraft, I'd say that only extraordinary weather conditions would cause the runway to be changed, i.e. aircraft would take off and land in the opposite direction.

[is]

sorry, but that photo looks completely fake. Theres no shadow from the plane, and the light on it looks completely wrong. It also looks too neat compared to the surrounding image, considering the speed it must be going.


It doesnt make SENSE that the pics would be fake tho. But they look it.

How odd.

[paul wright]

There's always an explanation why some people think they saw a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, and why some people interpret what they saw as a 20-seater charter jet, and why there isn't a lot of evidence of either, and why the prison planet people are hedging their bets as to whether a video showing the event might emerge eventually
In conjunction with the footage of the WTC2 hit, the explanation is obvious, but always gets dismissed as disinformation, so is hardly worth discussing here

[flamesong]

[flamesong]

And anyway...

Paul Watson has performed a bit of a climb down from his high horse, though he still claims St. Maarten/Saint Martin is in the Netherlands:

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/may2006/230506doesntfly.htm

Apparently, the landing aircraft are only doing 100 knots (91 mph), so even less photographic blur and a greater suggestion that people, cars and other objects would have been thrown about by a 757 20 feet above the Pentagon lawn.

[insidejob]

This photo looks fake to me. Tell me, what are the people on the beach are looking at? Exactly, whatever it is, it is not the plane. In fact, the only person looking straight at the plane is the man near the warning sign. And he seems to be looking through binoculars (!!!??) No one seems to be ducking or getting out of the way. There are two kids near the water who are totally oblivious to the fact that a plane has just missed them. And why does no one appear to be reacting to the noise the plane would be making? There’s one guy in a hat and sitting down, who seems to be on his mobile phone! Apart from the fact that it all just looks soooo dangerous!

Anyhow, fake or not, it is likely that the Pentagon will show film of a plane heading towards and crashing into it. As the Prisonplanet article suggests, they may well turn up just before the November elections. People won’t start believing they are fake until after the Bush gang has fiddled the election.

But I think people are mistaken if they believe that highlighting the Pentagon hit is a waste of time. The Pentagon hit is the most ridiculous aspect of the whole 911 hoax.

Most people can be fooled by the hocus-pocus pseudo-science into believing planes and fire caused the destruction of the buildings. (Although, clearly, not being told about WTC7 is making US citizens suspicious.) Yet, for the Pentagon, we are supposed to believe that:
- a pilot puts a plane into descent but manages to reduce its momentum to level off it at 20 feet
- speeds up to 500+ miles an hour and flies for a distance at 20 feet without either crashing into the ground or taking off again
- hits the ground floor of the Pentagon; while because it’s not at an angle, it therefore must be flying at around 20 feet
- the engines, with all the aircraft’s thrust, doesn’t smash into the reinforced concrete but the nose, with no thrust, does
- the wings and engine bends back rather than snaps off and follows the nose into Pentagon
- the released video images does not catch any of the plane entering the Pentagon despite the fact that the concrete would slow it down
windows near the impact site remains intact
- the jet fuel burns the aircraft into nothing in an instant but doesn’t touch computer monitors, books, wooden stools at the crash site
- no signs of extensive fire or building damage in the inside rings of the Pentagon
- the computer simulations of the plane entering the building looks nothing like the actual damage done to the buildings
- there are, no doubt, other science defying anomolies.

What distance must the plane have travelled in order to smoothly descend to 20 feet? If not, how did the plane flying at a steep angle and travelling up to 500mph reduce its descent momentum to avoid smashing into the ground and in order to fly at 20 feet? Was the plane developed at Area 51? Did the pilot train at Area 51? Computer simulations of the crash show that the plane was cut into bits by the pillars in the buildings. It doesn’t show a plane piling into a hole.

The Pentagon hit is completely ridiculous. If they can make us drop this then we’re done for.

insidejob

[flamesong]

I don't think I will be wasting much more time trying to prove such an inconsequential photo to be genuine. If you want to know why nobody is paying any particular attention to the plane, it could be that it is such a common occurance that nobody seems too fazed by it. After the first half dozen or so it probably gets a bit boring. They are probably more common than trams in Blackpool (about every ten minutes!). I spent some time in Heston on a Heathrow flightpath. After a while, the never-ending stream of aircraft seeming to swoop just over the roof was no longer of any interest and the constant noise just became a nuisance.

Perhaps you would like to apply your sleuth like skills to debunking the hundreds of other photos of aircraft landing at Saint Martin:

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=saint+martin+airp ort&btnG=Search

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&q=maarten+airport&b tnG=Search

...and countless other Google permutations.

In fact, perhaps you should have spent a bit of time on Google yourself before you waded in.

With something so commonplace, why would anybody fake a photo anyway?

Perhaps ther are all fakes! Perhaps Saint Martin doesn't even exist! Perhaps it was created using Maya! Maybe there are no trams in Blackpool!

I'm sorry if I appear to repeat myself but there comes a point where cynicism at this level is no longer healthy and probably contributes a great deal to the 'tin-foil hat' reputation.

[is]

[Licenced2chill]

Come on Alex,you can do better-i mean no one expects film special effects to mirror real life...whatever the budget.
I`m still thinking that they`ve got more convincing footage to show us,fake or not.
IS could be correct-this could be a set up.Remember these neocons plan ahead,way ahead.Think PNAC.
I do worry about Alex Jones sometimes-its great to try to get the truth out and what he does must be dangerous for him,but Jeez talk about sensationalism and negativity.I know what to expect from him,but a friend was listening to him for the first time last week and at the end of the show he said to me"lets just kill ourselves now shall we..."
This responce cannot help his cause,and if anything it proves that some people are just as imprisoned by fear when they hear the truth.So in a way,he could even be doing the work of the neocons,without realising it.After all,hes always saying the new world order`s method is to tell us what they have planned for us before they do it.
Hmmm,thats what Alex does isn`t it?
No offence to the guy,i just think he`d get more interest if he toned down the fear factor and added a little more hope.