Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

US Releasing 9/11 Flight 77 Pentagon Crash Tape 1098

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the need-faster-video-editing-staff dept.
Robotron23 writes "The BBC is reporting that the US government has decided to release the videotape depicting the crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon building, nearly five years after the 9/11 attacks. The government had previously withheld the tape due to 'ongoing investigations' into al-Qaeda's Zacarias Moussaoui. A government representative commented that they 'hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Releasing 9/11 Flight 77 Pentagon Crash Tape

Comments Filter:
  • by Kelson (129150) * on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @04:20PM (#15344870) Homepage Journal

    You can't put the conspiracy theories to rest. They already believe you're covering something up, so if you release a report that shows...

    • No reliable evidence of alien spacecraft has been found, ever.
    • The Cydonia [badastronomy.com] region on Mars (the "face") appears to be a natural formation, and not ruins of an ancient Martian civilization.
    • We really did land astronauts on the moon.
    • An airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, not a missile.

    ...the conspiracy theorists will just claim you've fabricated or altered the "new" evidence.

    • by Microlith (54737) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @04:29PM (#15344954)
      Paranoia is self-perpetuating.

      Any rational explanation is simply "ignoring the facts" and any evidence that counters is faked.

      I bet the Fark article on this is full of references to thermite, missiles, and crazy conspiracy theories all over again.
    • by Julian Morrison (5575) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @04:46PM (#15345151)
      Yeah. Bush being eeeevil, has dedicated the last four and a bit CPU-years of the Pentagon's secret beowulf cluster of Crays to rendering the snazziest pseudo-real computer graphics since that Final Fantasy movie they made so much fuss over a few years back. All in order to cover up the huge Texaco oil truck backing up to the wall, a guy in a ten-gallon hat getting out, unreeling and lighting a fuse, and scarpering in an unmarked black helicopter full of G-men.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @05:03PM (#15345349)
      I hope you realize that the story about 20 or so Arab men conspiring to hijack planes and fly them into various landmarks is a conspiracy theory, as well.

      Many people who rant on and on about 'conspiracy theorists' follow beliefs that are just as questionable. Their position may be supported by certain governments or the mass media in various nations. But on the basis of evidence alone, their stance is often far weaker than that of even the so-called 'conspiracy theorists'.

      Talk negatively about conspiracy theories all you want. Just realize that the story you hold dear is just that: a conspiracy theory.

      • by NutscrapeSucks (446616) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @05:09PM (#15345408)
        I hope you realize that the story about 20 or so Arab men conspiring to hijack planes and fly them into various landmarks is a conspiracy theory, as well.

        Excellent point AC. Most Conspiracy Theories can be dismissed easily because there probably wasn't even a consipracy to begin with. But 911 *was* a conspiracy, so by defintion any explaination is a conspiracy theory.

        Note that even the official theory has all sort of bizarre aspects (James Bond-style mastermind villian in his secret underground bunker, for example).
        • Yeah, but there's a big difference between a conspiracy between religious extremists to hijack planes and crash them into the buildings of their enemy and a conspiracy of a government to arrange for an attack on its own people. The latter is what people mean when they talk about a conspiracy in this context. The former, yeah, it's technically and legally a conspiracy, but it's not the kind of thing that you can protect against with tin foil.
          • by NutscrapeSucks (446616) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @05:38PM (#15345691)
            Well, there's also a big difference between "The government used hologram missiles and controlled demolition to blow up WTC" and "The government used certain bureaucratic mechanisms in order to increase the likelihood of that a known terrorist plot would be successful for ultra-cynical political gain."

            Of course, most people in the Conspiracy Theory world don't really understand the difference and there's very much a "ends justify the means" attitude where any crazy idea is good if it will raise doubt on the official theory, and that approach tends to cast the whole lot in tinfoil.

            And it still doesn't change the fact that an official conspiracy theory was put forward, and acted on, without a whole lot of evidence. (Not just "religious extremists", but the whole "Al Qaeda==Worldwide Terrorist Network", when the reality is that the conspiracy theory created Al Qaeda rather than visa-versa.)
            • by WombatControl (74685) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @08:09PM (#15346923)
              And it still doesn't change the fact that an official conspiracy theory was put forward, and acted on, without a whole lot of evidence. (Not just "religious extremists", but the whole "Al Qaeda==Worldwide Terrorist Network", when the reality is that the conspiracy theory created Al Qaeda rather than visa-versa.)

              That is completely untrue.

              Al-Qaeda is Arabic for "the Base" or "the Foundation" - but it's actually a shortened form of the Arabic term "qaedat bayanat" - or database. Al-Qaeda started in the mid 1990s based on Osama bin Laden's personal database of Arab mujihadeen who had fought with him in Afghanistan against the Soviets. His number 2 man, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri was recruited in order to merge al-Qaeda with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad.

              As a side note, the CIA did not fund bin Laden, although they knew of him and knew that some fighters they did fund were also working with him. The CIA's main group in Afghanistan throughout the 1990s was led by a man named Ahmad Shah Masood. Masood was assassinated by bin Laden on September 9, 2001 as a symbol of al-Qaeda's commitment to protecting the Taliban. The group that Masood founded was the Northern Alliance - the same fighters who fought with the CIA in 2001 against the Taliban.

              Al-Qaeda has existed as a terrorist organization since at least 1998, and probably earlier. It was 1998 when al-Qaeda launched the attacks against the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and bin Laden declared his fatwa against the presence of American troops on the Arabian peninsula.

              So, no, you are not correct. Al-Qaeda has root well before 9/11, and to insinuate that it was invented afterwards is simply not correct.

              • by NutscrapeSucks (446616) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @08:23PM (#15347033)
                WombatControl -- I didn't mean to imply that Al-Qaeda did not exist, and I'm fully aware of the "The Database" explaination. However, by positioning Al-Qaeda as something much larger than what it actually was, the US Government's propaganda effort essentially created "Al-Qaeda London", "Al-Qaeda Spain", and "Al-Qaeda Iraq" out of random disorganized groups, thus mainfesting a "worldwide" enemy were there simply was not one before.

                The BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares", expounds on this theory. You may have seen it already, but I might as well recommend it for other slashdotters:
                http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmare s [archive.org]
                • WombatControl -- I didn't mean to imply that Al-Qaeda did not exist, and I'm fully aware of the "The Database" explaination. However, by positioning Al-Qaeda as something much larger than what it actually was, the US Government's propaganda effort essentially created "Al-Qaeda London", "Al-Qaeda Spain", and "Al-Qaeda Iraq" out of random disorganized groups, thus mainfesting a "worldwide" enemy were there simply was not one before.

                  Except that is also not quite accurate. Al-Qaeda basically operated like a "

              • There are lots of theories as to who assinated Masood and why. Massood was an immensely popular figure and would have been the natural leader of the post taliban Afghan govt. More then likely he would not be a patsy for anyone.

                The fact that he died so suddenly just before the US invasion certaintly turned out to be very convenient for both the US and Pakistani governments.
          • But the sad truth is that authorities often allow disasters to happen. A couple of examples in American history alone that I can think of off the top of my head:
            • There is evidence [wikipedia.org] to suggest Roosevelt knew about the Japanese plans to attack prior to Pearl Harbour to unite the wavering American people in entering World War II. Though this is still somewhat contentious, it is undeniable that he was certainly forcing Japan to attack by refusing to sell them fuel (for example). A sharp operator like FDR would
            • by ScuzzMonkey (208981) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @08:30PM (#15347092) Homepage
              While your points are correct, I think it's safe to say they're only really significant in hindsight. One of the classic problems with conspiracy theory is that it retroactively highlights facts that, at the time, no one would necessarily have thought significant. Roosevelt may well have expected a Japanese attack of some sort; he almost certainly never imagined a defeat on the scale of Pearl Harbor and the loss of the Phillipines. Similarly, it's unlikely that anyone in the chain of command responsible for blowing the Tonkin incident out of proportion imagined what a quagmire Vietnam would turn into when we took over the war there and their motivations may have been much less grand than sparking a full-blown intervention anyway.

              So I think it's a little off-base to say that anyone allowed disasters to happen. The chain of events leading up to them is always clear in retrospect, but another flaw in conspiracy theory is that it attributes such masterful vision and control to the conspiracists leading into the event, and then presumes such incompetence in handling and covering it up. In reality, no one has such complete control nor such prescience. Things become immensely confusing and fractious around such events, and no one who has ever been in the middle of such confusion could give much credence to these grand theories of shadowy orchestration. The Clausewitzian concept of "friction" is very real and works against such clockwork machinations as most concepts of conspiracy would have you believe.
        • by Yvanhoe (564877) on Wednesday May 17, 2006 @03:13AM (#15348853) Journal
          Note that even the official theory has all sort of bizarre aspects (James Bond-style mastermind villian in his secret underground bunker, for example).

          * Intact hijacker passport found in the WTC ruins

          * Corpse identification thanks to fingerprints in the pentagon

          * Rumsfled making a lapsus about "these terrorists who pilot a plane into the WTC and a missile into this very building" while at the Pentagon

          * Tapes that would really show the pentagon plane never disclosed (3 more to go with more than one blurry frame)

          * half of the presumed "hijackers" still alive in Saudi Arabia or Qatar

          • So can you provide evidence of:
            * Rumsfled making a lapsus about "these terrorists who pilot a plane into the WTC and a missile into this very building" while at the Pentagon
            * half of the presumed "hijackers" still alive in Saudi Arabia or Qatar

      • Uhhhhhh, it's only a conspiracy theory if a false explanation is publicized while the real facts are kept quiet by a conspracy. What is the false explanation for the 20-1 hijackers and what are the real facts, and who are conspiring to keep them secret?
    • On the other hand, (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Peter Trepan (572016) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @05:23PM (#15345554)
      it's dangerous to discount all conspiracy theories. The Tuskeegee Experiment was a real conspiracy. The Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish doctrine is a real conspiracy. When landlords get together and change a neighborhood's zoning laws, that's a conspiracy too.

      These are the kinds of conspiracies that occur without the protection of the federal government. What kinds of schemes might people think up if they're free from any oversight whatsoever?

      I'm just saying that a little paranoia is a healthy thing. I'm not saying that our government hides aliens with guitar pick-shaped heads, or that they orchestrated the 9-11 attack, or that they conspired to fool everyone into thinking Iraq had nuclear...

      ...oh, wait.
    • by rossifer (581396) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @06:06PM (#15345930) Journal

      An airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, not a missile.

      The alternate conspiracy theory I heard on the Pentagon crash was centered around who flew the airliner into the Pentagon, not whether or not an airliner flew into the Pentagon.

      It's not all that hard to believe that an airliner flew into WTC2, since just about everyone on the planet has seen footage from a dozen cameras which show a 767/757 hitting the tower. Four planes didn't reach their destinations, four impacts are noted.

      As for the alternate conspiracy theory, there are only a few remotely relevant facts. They are centered around the lack of credible identification for the 19 passengers labelled as the terrorists.

      • First fact: the Dulles airport video tapes purported to show part of the Flight 77 check-in lack the camera id and time data that should be present on any airport surveillance capture.
      • Second fact: the tapes would have to be taken 30 minutes after sunrise, but appear to show bright sunlight and short shadows for people and cars outside the terminal.
      • Third fact: the sounds that appear to be the terrorists on the radio are extremely short and badly distorted, leaving little chance for actual identification.
      • Fourth fact: people made several phone calls from the first three aircraft before they crashed, but there has been no public release of information that they physically described the terrorists (as middle-eastern or arabic).
      • Fifth fact: flight 77 hit the Pentagon in the most heavily reinforced and least populated part of the building, a side that was not on a direct track from takeoff to the Pentagon.

      Personally, I find these facts insufficient to dispute the government's conclusions

      • There's no compelling reason to doubt the motive or the opportunity of radical islamist hijackers on 9/11. The presented story of the hijackers successful in seizing the aircraft is less astonishing than any alternative explanation.
      • All of the cases where the hijackers were supposedly spotted after 9/11 have been resolved as cases of confused identity (similar/same name) or simply bad original reporting.
      • Flight 77 was hijacked well into the flight (unlike Flights 11 and 175). Even though the side of the Pentagon hit was not on a direct track from Dulles to the Pentagon, it is very close to a direct track from where the transponders were disabled to the Pentagon.

      As for how the WTC buildings collapsed: I agree, it sounds strange that 1) all three of the collapsed buildings would fall mostly down into their foundations 2) at rates consistent with an unimpeded collapse and 3) the heavily reinforced WTC7 fell while WTC6 remained standing (WTC6 was between WTC7 and WTC1/2).

      I don't have an explanation for what happened, but then, I'm not a structural engineer. According to the engineers I've read, however, there simply isn't enough information about the collapse of well-engineered steel structures to accurately predict how they should behave during collapse. I do recall, however, that during the collapse, the bottom of each tower looked normal (windows intact, etc.) until engulfed in the debris cloud. The bottom of the tower did not look anything like the "simultaneous collapse" that deliberate building demolition almost always resembles.

      Further, I do know that a puddle of kerosene burning will burn at a much lower temperature than a properly aerated and driven kerosene torch (as in, I know from personal experience that you can run a steel forge on kerosene with a correctly sized blower to supply air to the flame) and so I find it highly credible that a kerosene fire could reach well past steel annealing temperatures and get to steel melting temperatures, depending on the specifics of fuel and air flow in the fire.

      Ultimately, though, there's no reason to waste your time wondering if the government actually did the atrocities of 9/11 or if several decades of destructive US foreign po

      • by orzetto (545509) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @08:44PM (#15347169)
        [...] a kerosene fire could reach well past steel annealing temperatures and get to steel melting temperatures, depending on the specifics of fuel and air flow in the fire.

        I agree with most of your post, but let me state once and for all: the fire did not have to melt steel. It only had to weaken it. Steel gradually loses its tensile strength with temperature. It is a known fact and a pretty well researched one, since it is very important in warehouses containing flammable materials—they can easily collapse during a fire. As you could guess, the steel of an extreme building as the WTC is strained to the limit. Since the second tower to be hit was hit at a lower level (more strain because of the weight), it collapsed first (Ok, sorta simplistic).

        • by rossifer (581396) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @09:33PM (#15347443) Journal
          I agree with most of your post, but let me state once and for all: the fire did not have to melt steel. It only had to weaken it.

          I never meant to imply that the steel had to be melted for the building to collapse, only that I have observed a kerosene fueled furnace fully melt steel.

          What I frequently hear by 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that kerosene burns at too low a temperature to weaken steel. Since steel becomes essentially plastic above the annealing temperature and I've observed a kerosene-air fire go well beyond softening steel to melting steel (white hot liquid), the assertion of the conspiracy theorists is wrong.

          Regards,
          ross
  • Probably not (Score:5, Insightful)

    by suso (153703) * on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @04:20PM (#15344876) Homepage Journal
    A government representative commented that they 'hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories.'

    The problem is that there is not a clear view of a 747 running into the pentagon. Just a streak and a fireball. Kinda like those UFO pictures and videos.

    What is that saying? "I want to believe", right?
    • Re:Probably not (Score:4, Insightful)

      by pcgamez (40751) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @04:36PM (#15345028)
      "A government representative commented that they 'hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories.'"

      It doesn't matter. The government can't win. There are two possible scenerios for releasing the tape:

      1) They release it immediately after the attack. People claim that there is no way they could release the tape that quick so it must have been fabricated beforehand.

      2) They release it well after the attack. People claim they had enough time to fabricate the tape.

      It's a no-win situation.
      • by equack (866135) * on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @06:21PM (#15346049)
        The best solution:

        3) Release it just prior to the attack. That way the media can preview the tape but still present it as a live broadcast.

    • by DaHat (247651) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @04:37PM (#15345037) Homepage
      Any evidence of a 747 hitting the pentagon would be quite a surprise and likely fake given that Flight 77 was a 757.
      • Any evidence of a 747 hitting the pentagon would be quite a surprise and likely fake given that Flight 77 was a 757.

        Thats what you goons want us to believe. Why do you think we're all suckers?
    • Re:Probably not (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ohreally_factor (593551) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @05:21PM (#15345541) Journal
      It all depends on what conspiracy theories he was referring to.

      I think he meant it would put to rest all those crazy theories that have recently surfaced that the government is engaging in illegal domestic spying.

      The timing of the tape release couldn't be more perfect, as a reminder to the populace for the reason why their civil liberties are being curtailed. Hopefully this will re-scare enough people to get Bush's approval rating moving in the other direction.
      • Re:Probably not (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Bob9113 (14996) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @08:22PM (#15347025) Homepage
        The timing of the tape release couldn't be more perfect, as a reminder to the populace for the reason why their civil liberties are being curtailed.

        You say the timing is "perfect", and yet, there are so many other times that it could have been released since 9/11 that would have been just as perfect. In fact, can you name a time in the past few years when there wasn't a borderline catastrophe bubbling away in DC? Perfect timing? I think not - our bold DC leaders are truly dedicated to ensuring that every moment is equally perfect for a distracting press release. The rules changed on 9/11 - we can no longer afford to leave months or even weeks unfilled by scandal at the highest levels of government.

        :)
  • Fox News Has It (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Trip Ericson (864747) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @04:28PM (#15344949) Homepage
    It's on Fox News's site, front page.

    It doesn't show us anything new. It answers no questions. The frame rate of the camera was too low to catch the plane/missile/emu (take your pick) as it came in.

    What would have been good would be a release of the other video tapes that were seized on 9/11. Even if their quality wasn't that good, I'd imagine at least ONE should have something vaguely resembling a plane in it.
    • I saw it on Fox News today and something I noticed should dampen the missile theorists. The low framerate prevented the smoking gun shot of an airplane everyone was hoping to see, however the explosion is key. There was a big red fireball with thick black smoke when it hit the building. This is evident of a fuel explosion, not a missile explosion. Dispite how movies portray ordinances exploding in big puffy fireballs, they're actually like big "bangs". They don't create much smoke, instead just blow du
      • by TomorrowPlusX (571956) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @05:51PM (#15345805)
        I work in DC, and lived -- at the time -- in Old Town Alexandria. On Sept 11, given the general state of confusion, I opted not to take the metro home that day, and instead walked home along the GW parkway ( it was such a beautiful day, actually -- and the ten mile walk allowed me to really think about the situation, and how this was pretty much the end of freedom in the US for a while at least, but that's another story ).

        Anyway -- here's the thing. I was upwind of the pentagon, maybe a mile away, and I smelled ( what smelled to me like ) burning kerosene. LOTS of burning kerosene. As in, I personally stank of kerosene smoke after walking past.

        Frankly, that's enough for me. I understand that jet fuel is more or less like kerosene, and I would expect a crashed airplane to burn up whatever's in its tanks. Hence, the stench of lots of burning kerosene.

        Now, regarding the "another story"... as I was approaching National airport ( I will never call it "Reagan National" ), I came across a bunch of toddlers and little kids, surrounded by military personnel. There was another civilian ( like me ) walking past, she had a camera, and took a photo of the pentagon smoke, and another of the military types and the children. The officials immediately stormed her, confiscated her camera and tore out the film. Very rudely, I might add. I saw all this, and after the lady left, I walked up and said to one of the friendlier looking guards "What was that all about?". She said the kids were pentagon employee children from the daycare facilities and they wanted to respect their privacy -- which is commendable, so in principle I understand. But the way they went about it was unnacceptable.

        I saw one of the opening acts of our descent into a police state, right there.
        • by eh2o (471262) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @07:21PM (#15346570)
          Ok, so first of all we all know that nobody walks home 10 miles. That is just common sense. And just why is it that *all of the sudden* after 9/11 you no longer live in Old Town?? Something smells fishy. Second, kerosene burns in lamps, and the pentagon is a very secretive place, so they probably don't have lights. Therefore they could not possibly have any kerosene there. Third, smoke rises so you couldn't possibly have smelled it from a *mile* away. Like what, the laws of physics just didn't apply that day? Well I asked a physics professor and he said the laws of physics *always* apply! So, just how is it that *you* would smell like kerosene unless, obviously, you had rubbed kerosene on your clothing to make people *think* there was a something like kerosene burning. As for the photograph, its obviously *you* that took the film because you didn't want any documented evidence that you were in fact at the National Airport the whole time! Obviously you were in the mysterious "unmarked white plane" and had just landed.

          Nice try, Mr. Three-Letter-Agency, but we can see right through your web of lies.
        • Jet fuel is not more or less like kerosene. Jet fuel is kerosene.

          It has certain antifungal and other additives in small concentrations, and the solid crap has been filtered out of it, but other than that it's your grandfather's coal oil.

          rj
  • by jasonmicron (807603) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @04:31PM (#15344968)
    It is a complete waste. It's like a George Lucas remake of the original camera that we have already seen over the last 4 1/2 years. And by "George Lucas" remake I mean it is 99% original material, but from new angles!

    No plane can be seen and all you really see is a flash of light then an explosion.

    I'm not one of those whack-job conspiracy theorists but for Judicial Watch to make claims of, "this will end all conspiracy theories" and then go on to release this load of steaming dog poo is poor judgement and will only continue to be fodder for the tin foil hatters the world over.
  • Absurd (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Poppler (822173) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @04:31PM (#15344970) Journal
    the US government has decided to release the videotape depicting the crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon building, nearly five years after the 9/11 attacks

    We should have had this on day 1. How did keeping this under wraps help the Moussaoui trial?
    This kind of secretive attitude creates an environment where conspiracy theories flourish. If the Government wants to disprove these theories, they should release as much information as they safely can, instead of fighting tooth and nail to keep everything secret.
    • Re:Absurd (Score:5, Insightful)

      by christopherfinke (608750) <chris@efinke.com> on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @04:41PM (#15345087) Homepage Journal
      If the Government wants to disprove these theories
      Regarding conspiracy theories, I believe the burden is on the conspiracy theorists to prove their theories, not for the targeted group to disprove all conspiracies directed towards them. If I say "George Bush is an alien," should he undergo a medical examination specifically to prove that he is human, or should I offer undeniable proof of his extra-terrestriality?
      • Re:Absurd (Score:3, Funny)

        by Cheapy (809643)
        If that surgery has a high mortality rate, then yes. Yes he should go under the knife.

          (for those who can't tell)
  • by Council (514577) <rmunroe@gmail. c o m> on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @04:32PM (#15344982) Homepage
    Most of the traffic I've seen about the conspiracy theories centers around the most recent Loose Change [google.com] video. The claims in the video are well-argued but absolutely silly. While trying to explain this to several people who had sent it to me (as well as check to see if maybe some of their stuff was true) I stumbled on an excellent viewer's guide in which the video is taken apart line-by-line and fact/logic-checked. I found it on some cached upload site thing whose reliability I can't vouch for, so I've mirrored it here:

    http://xkcd.com/911_loose_change_viewer_guide.pdf [xkcd.com]

    Remember: if you can't identify the fake conspiracy theories, you'll never learn who's really out to get you.
    • by lawpoop (604919) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @06:33PM (#15346154) Homepage Journal
      This 'debunking guide' has language just as smarmy and referenceless statements just like conspiracy videos. That degrades its credibility, in my eyes. I was keen on seeing a decent debunking of the loose change video, but this guide is simply a troll. If you want to be taken seriously, speak seriously. Here are a few select quotes:

      "You must be thinking of the old Pentagon, which was made of balsa wood and marshmallows" (p. 31)

      "KARL! Thank God we've got an expert in the house!" (p. 33)

      "And they're all accounted for. You can check yourself if you don't believe me." (p. 41)

      "They work for the 'Boss'. (Springsteen?)" (p. 42)

      This sloppy scarcastic language is found throughout the guide. Why should I take it seriously?
      • by Council (514577) <rmunroe@gmail. c o m> on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @06:49PM (#15346269) Homepage
        This sloppy scarcastic language is found throughout the guide. Why should I take it seriously?


        It's fairly sensible to accept more sloppy language in something disputing an extraordinary claim than in something making the claim in the first place. If you think about it, you see it everywhere. It's the same reason Snopes is reasonably trusted -- debunking a claim doesn't take nearly the credibility it takes to make one. After a claim is made, the incentives shift, and parties previously uninvolved are brought in. The dialogue changes, but the debate also changes to be more fact-check-y and less initial-claim-make-y. This permits sloppier language to be taken more seriously.

        But by all means -- and I say this without sarcasm -- take seriously anything you want using whatever credibility metrics work for you.
    • Ok the conspiracy is crap. But how smart is the debunker?

      He starts with:

      To avoid being harrassed by CTists, I have chosen to issue this guide anonymously.

      and ends with:

      file:///Users/markroberts/Desktop/911%20Activism/L oose%20Chang...wer%20Guide/911%20Loose%20Change%20 2%20Viewer%20GuideText.htm
  • by mobby_6kl (668092) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @04:34PM (#15344999)
    What the hell, did they use a cluster of 386s to render the thing?
  • by Cornflake917 (515940) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @04:37PM (#15345038) Homepage
    For those of you unaware of the conspiracy theories floating around, 911: Loose Change [google.com] is a documentary that claims that the U.S. government planned and executed the attacks on 911. It's obviously all B.S., but it does make you think. The documentary fails to address the fact that no one tried to expose these plans beforehand. If the U.S. gov't tried to do something like this, thousands of people would of have to known about it. Anyone with a conscience would have exposed this plan and tried to put a stop to it. And there has a to be at least A FEW government employees that have a conscience. Either way it's such a stretch, it almost reminds of the whole "We never landed on the moon" theory. People are willing to say anything to get some attention.
    • by iminplaya (723125) <iminplaya.gmail@com> on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @05:04PM (#15345358) Journal
      If the U.S. gov't tried to do something like this, thousands of people would of have to known about it.

      The plot [gwu.edu] has been on the table for over forty years. You're not one of those that believe that our government would never do such a thing, are you?
      • by Chris Burke (6130) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @05:18PM (#15345519) Homepage
        Love that place, and love the Freedom of Information Act that allows it to exist -- one of the true strengths of our Democracy.

        If you haven't read it, and if you are at all prone to dismissing "conspiracy theories" on the basis that our government wouldn't do that kind of thing, you have to read it. If you've ever wondered: Did the CIA really know and approve of the Contras funding their war by selling drugs in the States? Did the U.S. really know that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds at the same time Donald Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam's hand and providing cover stories for him? Read it.

        Nothing that I know of that is relevent to the current situation, but it is still a fantastic archive and a great resource for putting to pasture any remaining naivete you may have about the nature of governments.
  • let's be honest (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Joe the Lesser (533425) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @04:48PM (#15345186) Homepage Journal
    As much as I don't trust Bushco, I just can't see all those people not being dead. You can't cover up something that big.

    I mean, we clearly saw the planes hit the towers, so it's logical to assume that if planes were used in place A, why bother to not use planes in place B.

    I think the thurst of the paranoia would be better suited looking at how the towers fell as if internal explosions took them down, and the planes were just for drama. That's the only part that I think I can begin to question, though that's not to say our government is more behind it than any other government in the world. If anything's wrong, it's the towers falling so quickly like they did.

    Not that I really believe Bush planned it, (is he smart enough?) but if someone other than bin Laden and his crazies was in on it, I want their heads too.
  • Futile task (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gadzinka (256729) <rrw@hell.pl> on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @04:49PM (#15345191) Journal
    A government representative commented that they 'hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories.'

    Now, that's really stupid and pointless task. Every conspiracy theory is not falsifiable [wikipedia.org], so there's no point in disproving it.

    In short, there's no proof that you can give to conspiracy theorist, that will convince him he is wrong. Just ask any of them, if there is anything in the world that would make him change his mind.

    Robert
  • by SocietyoftheFist (316444) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @04:59PM (#15345312)
    The heart of the US military apparently isn't watched any harder than me when I drive around town. Really.... are those two time lapse cameras really the best they had?
  • Further... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Robotron23 (832528) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @05:03PM (#15345351) Homepage
    Further to my article posting...it appears the "new" video is no more than a slightly higher quality and lenghtier version of the Pentagon's CCTV camera tape - released less than six months after 9/11 itself. I won't go in to the inconsistancies here - spot them for yourself at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4987716. stm [bbc.co.uk]> the BBC's page.

    Will it put the conspiracy theories to rest? No. Did the US government want this footage retained as it simply fuels speculations of foul play; what with a higher quality image of a false looking 747 revealed?

    If anything, this new higher definition tape just fans the flames of speculation. What about the CCTV confiscated from nearby establishments such as a high rise hotel? These too are in possession of the US government - yet haven't been released. If they give (as they will, given their position overlooking the Pentagon) clearer pictures, then why haven't these been released as well, to utterly cement US claims of Flight 77's actual crash?

    Who knows...maybe I'm just a paranoid android.
  • Black Ops (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @05:28PM (#15345601) Homepage Journal
    Why don't they release the black box recordings of the inflight data?
  • i call bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ultramrw21 (889103) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @06:12PM (#15345969)
    The release of this video is not about "disproving conspiracy theories". It's to remind the american people of what happened 5 years ago. Approval ratings are plummeting across the board, when were the president's approval ratings at their highest? right after 9/11. It's pretty clever, we havent had any other attacks to scare us into submission, why not bring the terrorist attacks of 9/11 back in the citizen's minds? Thats just my two cents
  • Oh yeah... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by chaboud (231590) on Tuesday May 16, 2006 @08:55PM (#15347255) Homepage Journal
    And here's [chaboud.com] (video, wmv) a video of me kicking over a box right before another copy of me walks in front of the first and picks the box up.

    I made it in about 20 minutes. They've had five years. I'm definitely not saying that the video is faked. I'm just saying that the conspiracy theorists will just look at this as a feeble attempt to fight back a tide of question-worthy evidence.

    They might be right, or they might not. I'll be surprised if we ever get solid evidence one way or another. If I had the really good tape of the hit locked up in the Pentagon, I'd just hang on to it to mess with people.

Two is not equal to three, even for large values of two.

Working...