Sunday, June 04, 2006

Even More Quote Mining

I have discussed previously the topic of quote mining, which is where the filmmakers take a quote from a source out of context, to make it appear that they support their conspiracy theory, ignoring the rest of what they said that would completely contradict their theories. There are some previous examples of this here, here, here, (yawn) and here.

Here is yet another example, regarding the supposed lack of a plane crash at the Pentagon, at the 16:23 mark:

Dylan: "Fourth. Why is there absolutely no trace of Flight 77?"

Unidentified speaker: "From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you 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... "


The movie doesn't tell you, but the speaker is CNN's Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre. From this quote we are obviously meant to presume that Mr. McIntyre believes there is no evidence at the Pentagon to indicate that a plane crash there. Is this true? Well let's look at what he says only a minute before this quote (emphasis mine):

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 been recently 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, but 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 windshield or other window from the plane.

Gee, why is this not in the movie? It is from the same CNN piece that Dylan and company got their previous quote from! Why was this left out?

Even Jamie McIntyre is angry that people are manipulating his words. From a report regarding last month's release of the video at the Pentagon.

MCINTYRE: The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN in which I -- myself -- appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site near the Pentagon only at the Pentagon


MCINTYRE AUDIO: The only site is the actual site of the building that's crashed in, quote 'the actual site of the building that's crashed in.'

MCINTYRE: In fact there were thousands of tiny pieces of the plane, and I personally photographed a piece of the fuselage and what appeared to be part of the cockpit.

If the evidence that the government is behind this is so convincing, why do they keep on having to lie to make their point? Pat and I have made over 200 posts on here debunking Loose Change, and you cannot point out a single case of us being dishonest like this, yet I can point out a half dozen examples in Loose Change, without have to think about it.

16 Comments:

At 04 June, 2006 19:20, Blogger MarkyX said...

I seriously think there needs to be a lawsuit going on.

 
At 04 June, 2006 19:41, Blogger Chad said...

Joan, BG, Nesnyc, Roger, Bueller?

Anyone?

Anyone care to comment?

 
At 05 June, 2006 08:17, Blogger debunking911 said...

Better yet, here is the actual interview.

http://www.positiontoknow.com/S-11/vid/bezuprzedzen.pl/america_under_attack-pentagon_cnn_reporter_first_part.mpeg

Note how he was asked if a plane had hit short of the pentagon. He then says he didn't see any signs of a plane hitting "Near" the pentagon. That's because it HIT the pentagon, not NEAR it.

 
At 05 June, 2006 14:16, Blogger Chad said...

And now it's time for an SCL analogy...

Logic : CTs :: Raid : roaches.

Once you start spreadin' the stuff, they little critters start to scatter.

 
At 05 June, 2006 16:26, Blogger James B. said...

Sorry Chad, I don't think we are going to get a robust debate going here.

Begin cricket chirping...

 
At 05 June, 2006 16:31, Blogger Chad said...

Shame too.... I would've liked to see their answer for your rather legitimate question.

 
At 05 June, 2006 23:16, Blogger Proud Kaffir said...

I know what there answer will be. They will say that Dylan Avery is in on the conspiracy and is putting easily debunkable material in the film to discredit the entire movement.

I think some kooks have already settled on this logic.

What this evidence shows is that there are people, like Avery, intentionally deceivng and trying to make a name for themselves, or make money, on the horrific deathes of 3000 people. These omissions were very deliberate and could not have been accidental. Avery and the rest of the pied pipers of this movement are beneath contempt.

 
At 08 June, 2006 05:54, Blogger cypher said...

how can a plane crash into the pentagon, melt due to a 4500F fire, evaporate (since there is no melted metal found), but the FBI can identify victims and hijackers by their fingerprints and dental records, and even claim a few months later that they have almost reconstructed the plane (but won't show us a picture of the reconstructed plane however)?

 
At 08 June, 2006 05:59, Blogger Alex said...

melt? evaporate? what?

Put down the bong. That's it. Now, give yourself a couple hours to sober up, and then go google for pictures of the pentagon wreckage. The plane neither melted nor evaporated. It didn't incinerate, vaporize, sublimate, nor did it in any way change state. What it DID do is fall apart, or "fragment". Objects hitting reinforced concrete at high speed have a tendancy to do that.

 
At 08 June, 2006 06:38, Blogger cypher said...

alex, what is your need for a personal attack? I didn't claim personally that the plane melted or evaporated, so called experts defending the official account claimed it. So please do us all a favour and go advise them to stop their drug taking at once.

 
At 08 June, 2006 09:01, Blogger James B. said...

I didn't claim personally that the plane melted or evaporated, so called experts defending the official account claimed it.

Name one "so called expert" who said this. Other than the conspiracy theorists. Read the ASCE report, it goes in-depth into the plane crash, including the 90 foot width of the hole and where parts of the debris was found.

 
At 09 June, 2006 04:36, Blogger Alex said...

Exactly. What you are doing, Cypher, is called a "straw man" argument. The 9/11 conspiracy theory is full of them. A straw man is where you misrepresent your opponents statement in order to make it appear as if he said something which he didn't, and then proceed to argue against that modified statement. No expert, official, or anyone connected to the 9/11 investigation or even competent to judge that aspect of it has EVER suggested that the aircraft melted or incinerated. The ONLY places I can find that statement is on conspiracy-theory websites. Why do you suppose that is?

 
At 14 March, 2007 12:41, Blogger costa rica said...

Glass Bongs and Bong featuring Herbal Smoke, water bongs, bongs online head shop, Marijuana Alternative,glass water bongs, Hashish, Ganja, homemade bongs, Smokeshop, cannibis, legal smoking alternatives for herbal highs and aphrodisia. http://www.headshopinternational.com

 
At 01 June, 2007 18:05, Blogger Lola (Leslie) said...

"The plane neither melted nor evaporated. It didn't incinerate, vaporize, sublimate, nor did it in any way change state. What it DID do is fall apart, or "fragment". Objects hitting reinforced concrete at high speed have a tendancy to do that."

**Could someone PLEASE tell me if they have been able to find pictures of the fragments of these planes, then, so we can put this argument to rest, once and for all? I haved googled all over and I never see any pictures other than a fan, but no evidence of skidmarks or wings...I would love to put this to rest.

 
At 10 December, 2007 11:35, Blogger Diana said...

Jamie McIntyre is the Senior Pentagon correspondent for CNN. He has held this position since 1992. sportsbook, He received a Bachelor degree in journalism from the University of Florida, and in 2002 he was honored as a distinguished alumni. http://www.enterbet.com

 
At 29 December, 2009 19:58, Blogger qingchengzhilian said...

Your blog is very good, it's the best blog I've ever seen, thank you!
By the way, do you like polo shirts, which are very chic, especially the polo t shirts, I love them very much. I also like playing tennis rackets, it can keep healthy, what do you like to do? I'd like to introduce myself as the outlet of polo t shirts women, polo t shirts on sale, and polo t shirts for women. These products are our masterpieces, such as polo shirts on sale, polo shirts men, men's polo shirt, men polo shirt, mens polo shirts, mens polo shirt, besides we also sell cheap polo shirts, discount polo shirts, men's polo shirts, women's polo shirts. We are also the outlet of, cheap tennis racket, discount tennis racket, we recommend prince tennis racquet, head tennis rackets, wilson tennis racket, babolat tennis racquet. And it is our great pleasure that you come to our store online!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home