2006 - The Pentagon Tapes

On 16th May 2006, the Pentagon released two videos of the attack on the Pentagon after a Freedom of Information request by the organisation Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton noted in a press release that, “Finally, we hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories involving American Airlines Flight 77.” But the video images released by the Pentagon were similar to the five still frames which had been reported on over four years earlier, and did little to quell 9/11 alternative theories about the attack.

The BBC covered the story heavily in several website articles and TV news reports. “US releases 9/11 Pentagon video”, published on Tuesday 16th May, 2006 confusingly mixes up alternative theories about Flight 93 and the Pentagon when it notes that, “Some theorists have suggested the aircraft was shot down in flight, and that the Pentagon was struck by a missile.” It does mention Thierry Meyssan who, “alleged that Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon and suggested a truck bomb or missile caused the damage.”

Meyssan merits further attention in “Why Pentagon released 9/11 tape”, published on the same day. The article explains that, “The Pentagon said it could not release the videos in question because they were part of an ongoing investigation against al-Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui” before mentioning that, “…ideas aired in books such as Thierry Meyssan's The Pentagate, which argues that a missile, not a plane, struck the headquarters of the US defence department. The French journalist and left-wing activist claims the US government itself was behind the attacks. Two books he published on the subject were worldwide bestsellers.”

Down but not out

Whilst these articles are primarily about the release of the tapes and mention alternative theories only in passing, “Conspiracy theorists down but not out” is devoted entirely to 9/11 alternative theories about the Pentagon attack. Published a day later on Wednesday 17th May, 2006, this relatively lengthy article details many of the specific claims of 9/11 alternative theorists, offering some slightly generalised answers.

Journalist Paul Reynolds acknowledges that the “…grainy video frames…do not absolutely without doubt show that this was American Airlines 77 in its final moments…” He later remarks: “To understand the conspiracy theory, it is worth considering a film called Loose Change: 2nd edition.” Loose Change (Editions 1 & 2) are two of the most downloaded internet films of all time, and are popular with 9/11 alternative theorists. This article not only mentions the film, but also provides a link to google video where it can be viewed online.

He goes on to outline seven claims of 9/11 alternative theorists, such as, “it must have been a missile, a military aircraft or a drone”, “The alleged pilot Hani Hanjour was not skilled enough to execute the manoeuvre and the plane would have stalled in the tight turn alleged” and “The damage was not consistent with the size of the airliner.”

With this analysis, Reynolds goes further than previous BBC articles, and rather than simply dismiss the alternative theories outright, notes that, “There are, of course, answers to all of the above, to be found in the report of the 9/11 Commission, in other technical assessments and in common sense.”

The article continues by mentioning some of the other claims of Loose Change: 2nd Edition, including the allegation, “that United 93 which came down in a field in Pennsylvania, never crashed (the "crash site" was dug out by bulldozers) but landed at Cleveland and the passengers taken off” and “that the Twin Towers were brought down by ‘controlled demolition’”.

The Editors

A day later, on Thursday 18th May 2006, Reynolds published one of a deluge of emails he had received in a BBC blog called The Editors. “Conspiracy Theories” largely consists of an email from someone called David who is based in the UK. Before David’s email, Reynolds writes, “Each and every one of the theories has been exposed and I only wish I had the time and space to have gone into each.”

After a short introduction, David writes, “people…commonly called ‘conspiracy theorists’ by the media, certainly DO believe eyewitneses and the physical evidence. Unfortuately, most of the physical evidence was either (a) removed and destroyed as quickly as possible or (b) withheld by the government for no apparent reason…”The email continues, “The government line…ignores…physical evidence that it cannot explain, eg the pools of molten steel at the foot of the twin towers, remaining red-hot even some weeks after the impacts, the seismographic evidence, and the free-fall time of the towers' collapse, which would be impossible if the pancake theory is correct, and we haven't even started talking about Larry Silverstein saying that he, along with a fire chief, made the decision to "pull" building seven, which meant that it had to have been wired for demolition BEFORE 9/11.” (video / video)

“Further, what engineering studies is he talking about? All but one of the studies that I know of, including the opinion of the chief engineer of the twin towers, says that it is impossible that a single impact by a jet liner could cause the towers to collapse, and that they were designed to withstand impacts by multiple boeing seven-oh-sevens, fully laden with fuel.” (video / video)

The publication of this email is one of the few instances where a 9/11 alternative theorist is given a prominent platform in the British media. Many previous blogs and articles had published readers feedback, but this becomes easily lost amongst a swarm of comments. In addition, the BBC allowed the respondent to raise infrequently mentioned issues, such as the “pools of molten steel at the foot of the twin towers” and building seven (WTC7).

Guardian

Coverage in the Guardian followed a similar pattern to the BBC, with an initial article the day of the footage’s release, and a follow up article about alternative theories surrounding the Pentagon crash.

“Pentagon releases September 11 video” published on Tuesday 16th May, 2006, offers a run down of Meyssan’s ideas: “The Flight 77 crash has spawned numerous conspiracy theories, including one from the French journalist Thierry Meyssam who suggested that a truck bomb or missile caused the explosion, not the plane.”

The article then makes an interesting admission, marking one of the first occasions that the British media has acknowledged expert dissent over 9/11: “Most journalists, scientists and military experts have dismissed the conspiracy theories, but a minority of experts support them.”

Plane Spotting

“Plane spotting” published on Thursday 18th May, 2006 also marks new territory for the Guardian in its more balanced and neutral tone. This Newsblog item recounts both sides of the argument as to whether the released images show a plane, and links to one of the most popular Pentagon 9/11 alternative websites, Pentagon-Strike.

Journalist Mark Oliver concludes: “The Hot Air blog and Captain's Quarters say that frames from the new video show a smoke trail belonging to the plane. Watching the video, I can buy this. Maybe you can see a smoke trail. But those who are suspicious argue that the footage does not clearly show a plane going into the building, only a fleeting, vague light shape, and then the explosion. One explanation for this is that the camera was low quality and the plane was moving at more than 500mph.”

2006 - Film Fictionalisation - United 93 & World Trade Center