Jamie McIntyre Expands On Pentagon 9/11 For 'On The Story'

[TheWebHead]

... and yeah, he did show a few of the photos during the program.

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

[KJF]

1. Thanks for posting this

Key phrase:
"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."

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Another key phrase

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.

I hope that all alternate theory advocates will go through their notes and video presentations and eliminate any reference to McIntyre's words.

[RedSock]

3. he should go into stand up comedy

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

Yup, and you and CNN do it so well.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[boastOne43]

5. actually here is the entire exchange.

Jamie McIntyre 05.16.06:

http://www.bcrevolution.ca/Video/CNN%20reporter_new_vid1.WMV

Jamie McIntyre 09.11.01:

http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/27_1-mcintyre.swf


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

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

excerpt from above transcript:


""
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.
""

if you look at the question that preceded Jamie McIntyre's statement and his ENTIRE statement, you'll see that he has put the spin on it now.

[Generarth]

6. He also says the conspiracy theories are convincing.

read between the lines.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. The spin is in, but it's not McIntyre spinning.

Just as he said today - he was asked about the plane crashing NEAR the Pentagon, landing short of the Pentagon. He saw no evidence of a plane crashing NEAR the Pentagon. The only crash site was the one IN the Pentagon. The lack of debris he explained then as the plane crashed INTO the side of the Pentagon. In other words, the plane went into the Pentagon.

The people in the radio clip that started this thread are LYING. They have COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTED Jaime McIntyre with malice aforethought - because they did have the audio clip and had to trim out the question that makes it clear what McIntyre is saying.

That is not the way to run a truth movement.

[mirandapriestly]

8. More than a spin. Watching the tape from 9.11

it's clear that he is now being deceptive about his original intention. His job must be on the line or something.

[boastOne43]

4. if CNN is so credible why did they try this.

"CNN is trying to bait 9/11 truth activists to appear as guests on its programs and attack Charlie Sheen. William Rodriguez and Philip Berg appeared on the Alex Jones Show today to expose a smear campaign that seeks to poison the well of the 9/11 truth movement.

WTC survivor and truth activist William Rodriguez was contacted by the Anderson Cooper 360 show and asked if he would go on record as saying the new Pentagon footage dispelled all 9/11 questions. They also requested that he attack Charlie Sheen's public stance on 9/11.

One CNN researcher outright called Charlie Sheen a liar during a phone call with Rodriguez.

After Rodriguez (pictured below) refused to take the bait, telling them he supports Sheen 100%, CNN cancelled his appearance even as the car to pick him up was en route. Rodriguez said CNN were taken aback by the fact that he refused to bad mouth Sheen.
..
CNN are also cynically posing as the de facto representatives of the 9/11 families and erroneously claiming that the families oppose any questioning of the official version of events. In reality, a majority of the family members now have questions of their own which remain unanswered and Charlie Sheen was overwhelmed with the support he received from 9/11 survivors and families after his public stance. Other networks like Fox have also used this tactic to try and silence 9/11 dissent."

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/180506attacksheen.htm

[Jazz2006]

9. Thanks, TheWebHead, for the info and the link.

People here were clamouring for a follow up on McIntyre and his story and the photographs that he took but, as will become apparent (if it hasn't already), the vast majority of CTers in this forum won't appreciate receiving the follow up that they clamoured for because it's rational and coherent and does not conform to their pet conspiracy theories.

Had the follow up indicated that McIntyre actually said that no airplane had crashed into the Pentagon, and had the follow up indicated that he hadn't taken photo or shown them on the program you cited, the CTers would have been all over it.

But since the followup didn't conform to what the CTers wished for, they'll pretty much ignore it, and a few of them will make up new conspiracy theories about it.

Go figure.

[greyl]

12. Self-delusion and wishful thinking are powerful things, ain't they?

It can be stunning sometimes.

[Jazz2006]

19. They are, indeed.

And even beyond stunning, sometimes.

As is evidenced repeatedly on these very threads.

No wonder DU keeps this forum in the "dungeon".

[reprehensor]

10. Video clip.

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/05/jamie-mcintyre-shows-personal-photos.html

Right after this segment Jamie joined right in spinning the administration line on the National Guard on the border fiasco.

Pathetic.

"McINTYRE: You know, it's interesting. The story was widely perceived by people as President Bush is sending troops to help guard the border, but what was really happening was President Bush was sending Guard troops to border states to help. Now, the same words are in both of those sentences, but they mean a completely different thing. They are not sending troops to stand on the border and bring all their equipment. They're using them to backfill a lot of positions that don't look all that glamorous. In fact, the fact of the matter is, you're not going to see many of these troops on the border at all. They'll be in places where you'll hardly notice them. And as you pointed out, it's all about how you can do a little bit to help without actually impacting the National Guard very much."

Thanks Jamie! Thanks!

[quickesst]

11. Yep.....

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.

You ct debunkers have nerve, that's for sure. Anyone who adamantly claims that the direct question wasn't answered directly by the reporter is lying to themselves, has no comprehension of the English language, or is recieving a check. My oldest brother is a university graduate, and a retired Air Force Major, but even with all those credentials, he still makes delusional statements, such as the high gas prices are good for the economy. Someone makes a statement like that, and anyone, from grade school dropout, to college graduate will make the same assessment. He's full of shit. Nuff said. Thanks.
quickesst

[greyl]

13. I'm afraid you're deceiving yourself.

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.

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

Simplified version:

Woodruff: *One of our correspondents was talking earlier with an eyewitness who said it appeared that that the Boeing 757 landed short of the Pentagon.*

Mcintyre: *No, the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon.*

One with an open mind respecting context can plainly see what which means in the discussion.

[boastOne43]

14. you are highlighting the wrong things

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.

the text highlighted in bold is the meat of the exchange.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. I disagree

Woodruff asks about the impressions of a witness that the plane landed short of the Pentagon. McIntyre negates that - there's not evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

I italicize the word "near" because McIntyre emphasizes it with his voice. Go listen to the original video. He punches near. The "entire plance crashed into the side of the Pentagon". That means all the big pieces he mentioned as not being outside must have gone inside.

Face it: the people selling you this nonsensical theory have been twisting his words all along. It's very telling that McIntyre's words both then and now accord with each other exactly, and yet people are slamming him for lying based on a very cherry-picked reading of his words.

This is no way to run a "truth" movement.

[greyl]

17. 'people selling you this theory have been twisting his words all along'

Yep, par for the CT course.
It's amazing how many gullible people there are to eat it up without an ounce of critical thought.

[Jazz2006]

18. Indeed. And on another thread....

someone posted a transcript of McIntyre's other comments on Sept. 11, which showed quite clearly that he was not being inconsistent as the tinhatters like to pretend.

[greyl]

16. No, I'm not. You are willfully ignoring

the evidence to be found in the context.

It's clear to me that the initial part of the question reference hearsay that a plane landed short of the pentagon.
McIntyre's response is 'No, there's no evidence that a plane landed short, the evidence is that the plane collided directly with, and went into the pentagon.'

When Mcintyre says: "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" the comma before "which" is meaningful.

He's not saying no plane hit the pentagon, he's saying there's no large wreckage outside of the pentagon that would indicate that a plane crashed short of the pentagon.

When comprehended, the context makes it clear what "which" means.

[Twist_U_Up]

20. One tiny security camera surrounding the Pentagon is laughable.

By the way where are the tapes the FBI seized from the hotel and gas station that where nearby ? The FBI it was reported that they showed up shortly after the supposed planes impact and confiscated them.

MIHOP

[HornBuckler]

21. It's pretty obvious to me.

The man says that no plane hit near the Pentagon and all he can see is pieces small enough to fit in your hand - and now this?

Come on

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

he was 'surprised' Why didn't he do his f'ing job then?

If you take the WHOLE context it sounds like complete bullshit to me. No one would answer a question like that -"No, no plane hit near the Pentagon" "Only hit the Pentagon" I mean who thinks and talks like that? Either it's in completely poor context or the man is full of shit.

I got money on the later.

[StealthyDragon]

22. They simply took him aside

a fed him the same lie they fed Congress. That it was in fact a missile that hit the Pentagon. Something like dirty bomb was most likely added in. (where is Jose Padilla anyway? I'm sure he fits in that lie somewhere!)

We had to shoot two passenger jets down..........was most likely more of the lie. (If I remember correctly on 9/11 two jets were first reported down in PA)

Who needs physical evidence? The lie lappers will love whatever they're told.

[HornBuckler]

23. don't know about the missile theory

but no friggin' large commercial airliner hit the Pentagon - that we can be sure of - Just look at the pictures..... not that I need to tell you this, but some people still will get on my ass for the comments I've made.

Peace

[StealthyDragon]

24. There are three kinds of people in this forum........

Those that understand when a lie is told to them. (analytical thinkers)

Those who haven't a clue about the laws of nature. (hearsay believers)

And government shills.

[Grateful for Hope]

25. I think there could be a fourth group

Bush sympathizers who will defend anything and everything his administration says is true. Of this, of course, I am not sure, and this is purely conjecture.

[greyl]

26. And there's at least one more...

Illogical people who jump to unwarranted conclusions, over-generalize, and suffer from invincible ignorance in general.

There are many different shades of people in this forum - it's shortsighted to oversimplify the situation.

[Grateful for Hope]

27. That's probably true, greyl.

But, what you describe is found on both sides of the argument (am hoping you see this). Personally, I do not like the bickering I see here, but, I guess I do understand that the issue involved is quite emotionally-charged, and, certainly not something that is easily resolved.

[greyl]

28. Yes, it can be on both sides of the argument.

Although, I'd like to point out that there are more than 2 sides to the argument.

But going with the 2-sides thing, I'd have to say that one side has at least slightly more tendency to think carefully and appreciate the power of logic.

edit: and for what it's worth, from looking at certain conservative sites, I fully understand that there are right-wing trolls here occasionally, and that they are more likely to post ridiculous shit than logical arguments.

[Grateful for Hope]

30. At least you are willing to look at the dynamics here

Thank you very much, greyl!

[StealthyDragon]

29. You can lump them in

with the second group.