CNN's Jamie Mcin-LIAR: Now he says he saw the plane!!

[casual hex]

Dids anyone just catch Jamie Mcintyre on CNN?

I Could not believe my own eyes and ears. Here is what this guy said on 9/11:

"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....."

Now on CNN he just said he saw the crash site that day and saw the plane, the fuselage, the tailsection...

WHICH IS IT JAMIE??

The truth came out on the day before the MIND CONTROL MACHINE went to work. Yes, Jamie Mcin-LIAR, of COURSE you saw the fuselage. you EFFING LIAR.

[grytpype]

1. Uh yeah, it was Santa's Sleigh that crashed into the Pentagon.

Where does this guy get the idea it was a plane? Sheesh.

[tridim]

2. If there were big pieces left, they would have been photographed

Period. CNN is lying, as usual.

[kenny blankenship]

4. Planes that hit concrete walls at 400-500mph DO NOT LEAVE big chunks

[stepnw1f]

5. really?

kinda like in the movies...

[kenny blankenship]

24. Yes REALLY

they don't even have to be laden with fuel. The law of kinetic energy ensures that if the plane is travelling fast enough, at typical open throttle speeds, not much of the plane will be found after impact in pieces larger than your arm or leg, aside from a few of the larger pieces of the hydraulics systems, landing struts, core engine pieces. According to physics, the kinetic energy of a moving object increases proportionally to the square of its velocity. If you double the speed of an impact you quadruple the kinetic energy that will be released.

We think we know what aircraft crashes look like from typical take-offs and landings that go wrong. IN such cases the plane is moving relatively slow and flops on its belly or plants a wing on the ground, it is after all not going fast enough to stay in the air. The fuselage breaks up and leaves ribcage like sections, maybe broken in halves, maybe charred but still recognizable as aircraft structures. We've all seen the pictures. However, a plane that is intentionally flown into a concrete building at high speed will break up in a manner completely different from that. It's more like a water balloon hitting the sidewalk.
Where does this airplane go?



Mind you there is no jet fuel on board this old Phantom, it's fuel tanks were filled with water to simulate the mass of a fuel load. The fire visible in the picture is from a rocket sled used to propel the jet at a concrete barrier (at a speed similar to the estimated impact speed of the Boeing that hit the Pentagon). The cloud of what looks like smoke is actually water and concrete from the thick reinforced barrier being pulverized to dust.

Watch the mpg clips to see the structurally rigid airframe, designed to withstand g-loads way beyond those experienced by a jetliner, disappear into millions of pieces, most of which you could easily hold in your hand.

An airplane that belly flops on a landing breaks up and burns is going slow and doesn't even striking the earth with all of that forward velocity (it's probably moving forward faster than downward). An airplane that is intentionally flown level, or diving, nose in to a building will efficiently convert its forward velocity into kinetic energy. A jet airplane flown at over 400Mph in a more or less level strike on a large concrete structure would hit its target with a velocity probably--oh let's say--4 times greater than the vertical velocity of a typical belly flop impact. The kinetic energy released by the level highspeed impact could easily be greater than the energy of a typical crash landing by not two times, or four times, but sixteen times. (This is not factoring in anything having to do with exploding fuel either, just mass and velocity) You would not expect to find many large pieces of such an aircraft. You wouldn't expect to see intact hunks of fuselage or wings anymore than you see them in this film of the F4 crash. The things that give an airplane its recognizable shape would have disintegrated. The thin aluminum skin that we see on the outside would be twisted up like scraps of paper, torn and retorn into scraps of confetti. The structure would all be all but gone too--most welds joining pieces will be shorn, most large structural pieces melted like cheese by the impact. A few extremely hard pieces of its internal systems would remain to allow an investigator to identify the wreckage as having once been a plane.

[truebrit71]

26. And how much bigger is a 757 than a Phantom?

n/t

[Zynx]

28. That only means a lot *more* energy.

Physics dictate a result identical to what is seen at the Pentagon.

[truebrit71]

29. ..and a MUCH bigger hole right?

...not the smallish hole that was made in the walls of the Pentagon...

[kenny blankenship]

30. Ten times greater mass which makes it ten times worse.

[tridim]

10. The reporter on CNN said he saw and photographed the tail section

and other large chunks. He was INSIDE the pentagon when the event happened.

[rooney]

3. Absolutely, I heard what he said and I have already

sent an email to him and Kera Phillips telling them that we would like to see the pictures that he took of the American Airlines plane.

[mirandapriestly]

23. Good going, what are the chances we'll see it or that

one even exists? Not much, I think

[ShortnFiery]

6. There's another story out there ... IMO, This is DISTRACTION : ( eom

[AzDar]

7. ...This stunning reversal brought to you by the NSA! n/t

[rodeodance]

9. um.. I missed the conversation. thanks.

[TAPat]

Yeah, I heard him too

and about pitched a fit. And I agree - let's see your pictures then Mr. I saw big 'ol chunks of plane everywhere.

[bluescribbler]

8. Bill Maher said

"If you believe the government faked 9/11, you also have to believe two things, that the government is competent, and that the government can keep a secret."

[charlie]

13. Missed the point

McIntyre reported no large debris on 911. And by all accounts, he was right, there was none. Today, he says he saw the fuselage and tail. He couldn't have. This isn't a 911 fakery story, this is McIntyre yammering about something he didn't see.

[GR]

19. This Is Fine But The Questions Then Need To Be Answered...

The 9/11 Commission Report didn't answer a whole raft of questions...Nor did they even ask them...

One item that struck me was in Loose Change II and that was that cell phones didn't work at altitude yet there are supposedly a number of cell phone conversations from passengers of Flight 93 for example. How could that have happened if cell phones don't work at altitude...or at least have a very small chance of working...????

[michael_1166]

20. But if someone believes a flight school failure

(who couldn't even fly a Cessna) mysteriously makes a passenger plane fly fighter jet maneuvers for crashing it into the Pentagon... well ... he or she probably has watched too much Faux News.

[petgoat]

22. What makes you think the fake attacks were competent?

*Bush had to sit on his ass half an hour, waiting for 77 to strike.
*The 9/11 Commission Report had to completely rewrite NORAD's timeline.
*The 9CR had to ignore Mineta's testimony that Cheney was in the White House bunker
at 9:20; they say he didn't get there 'til 9:58
*They had to pretend they didn't get the flight recorders from the WTC planes
*They had to pretend 93 wasn't shot down
*They had to pretend that after two hijacked planes were flown into buildings
the FAA never bothered to notify NORAD about either 93 or 77.
*They used way too much explosives on the WTC, making those enormous mushroom
clouds
*They had to suppress a whole lot of evidence (see the Scholars for 911 Truth's
petition for release of this)

[Jane Austin]

11. NBC's James Miklaszewski was inside the Pentagon, and felt what he

called an explosion.

He'd better not say he saw a plane hit, because I distinctly remember his being live inside his office at the Pentagon, and he didn't know what had happened until they heard from someone else.

[rodeodance]

12. Has the DOD footage been released? I just tuned in.

[rodeodance]

21. forget it. i just heard cnn say they are still waiting for video.

[DoYouEverWonder]

14. How come none of these eye witnesses

rarely notice the C130 that flew over right behind Flight 77?

[Sweet Pea]

31. Perhaps...

the C-130 wasn't that noticable to most?

[debbierlus]

15. Big fat LIAR -

And, STUPID.

It amazes me when people publicly contradict DOCUMENTED, RECORDED statements.

Moron!

[GR]

16. He Said He'd "Taken Pictures" Let's See 'Em...Good Catch...

And I don't believe the video will show much but am waiting to see if it does...They keep saying it will be released but no sign yet...

Loose Change II says that these vids have never been released and the still pictures show nothing...but flame and explosions...

But this question is not by any means the only unanswered question that needs to be answered before I believe the government account...

[Blackhatjack]

17. So His Memory Improved today compared to his initial report from the site

I would tend to place more faith in is original reporting from the site.

BTW people who change their stories about material facts observable and apparent to them do not engender trust in them.

[Ezlivin]

18. After a while they can no longer keep track of their lies

Or what the "official" story is supposed to be.

[Yatar]

25. He said something similar on 9/11

"A short 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 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 recently been 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, bit 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 window or other window from the plane." (September 11, 2001, #91135CN.V00)

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

I think the first quote was before he walked up to the building.

Also on CNN INTERNATIONAL, June 26, 2002, he said "I was there that day, I went and looked, I saw the plane wreckage. There were thousands of pieces of this plane all over the ground near the Pentagon."

Note that he said that the largest piece was about three feet. How large now is he saying that the pieces were?

[casual hex]

27. Re-read his first quote

It says:

"...from my close-up inspection..."

None of this has even addressed the fact that also on that day he said that the wall of the Pentagon did not collapse immediately. So this passenger jet hits the wall, but it doesn't fall straight away, but when it does fall the plane somehow wriggles in behind the fallen wall.

[Jazz2006]

32. "Wriggles in behind"?

Er, no.

The plane penetrated the building and continued forward inside the building for some distance. It did not strike the building and stop dead in its tracks outside of the building, which is what your post seems to be suggesting.

[casual hex]

34. The standing wall

If this passenger jet penetrated the building and continued forward inside the building, why did the entire wall of the Pentagon remain standing for over half an hour after the alleged plane hit?

Surely it would have been crushed and smashed and destroyed also? Why did it remain standing?

[Debunking911]

36. Like the towers

It just didn't remove the main supports, the fires did.

[TheWebHead]

33. TSR transcript

JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, the videotapes released today by the U.S. government had been held in evidence for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. In fact, they were shown at the trial. But once Moussaoui was sentenced, the government could no longer hold onto them. Under the Freedom of Information Act, they released them as a result of a lawsuit by the judicial watchdog group Judicial Watch.

The videos are essentially a more complete version of five still frames that CNN obtained back in 2002 from a Pentagon security camera that shows the only images seen so far of American Airlines flight 77 crashing into the side of the Pentagon. The problem with the original video was that it was only a single frame that showed the plane, and it was so indistinct that it helped fuel conspiracy theories on the Internet and around the world, questioning whether something else hit the Pentagon, like for instance, a cruise missile. Of course, Wolf, that's nonsense, given all the evidence we have about what really happened on September 11. But nevertheless, the fact that the government held onto these videotapes helped fuel the conspiracy theory.

Now two different versions have been released, both from the same Pentagon checkpoint but from two slightly different angles. In one, you can see what appears to be the nose of the plane just entering the frame. The other one, a little bit lower angle, shows what appears to be the fuselage whipping by just above the ground level and before it slams into the Pentagon. Again, both of these tapes now posted on the Pentagon's Web site and are part of the public domain, and they remain, at this point, the only images of American Airlines flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon -- Wolf.

BLITZER: The reason it was delayed all this time releasing this video is because they didn't want to interfere with the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, is that right?

MCINTYRE: Well, it had been confiscated by the Justice Department, held as evidence. And there were two arguments. One is that they might need it as evidence, the other that the release publicly could prejudice the jury in the trial. Of course, that question is moot now that the sentencing is complete.

BLITZER: All right. Jamie's going to be back in the next hour here in THE SITUATION ROOM with another report and more information. Jamie, thank you very much.

[Debunking911]

35. He didn't lie then

And hes not lying now.

This was just after the impact and he wasn't there to watch it. He was just letting everyone know he looked around and it looked to him like the plane impacted the building and not the ground outside.

I like evidence so here it is...

"my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon."

He walked around and saw no evidence of a plane hitting "NEAR" the pentagon...

"The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in"

The only site he sees which can be the airliner is the building. He said on CNN that the site he was talking about was the hole in the bottom of the building.

"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."

Since the plane went into the building much like at the towers there was no "large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around". There was none at the towers either which could be seen before the 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....."

Photos and the video which just came out also bear this out. The front collapsed after the fires weakened the building further.