Here is a video I have never seen before, of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center on 9/11. In recent days my comment threads have been packed with lefties saying we’re all overreacting to terrorism. I figure a little reminder now and then can’t hurt. (Via Ace, whose commenters are debating whether the video is real. Looks real to me . . .)
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | |||||
Powered by WordPress.
The video looks real, but the audio sounds dubbed in. IMHO, of course.
Russ (8bb875) — 2/2/2006 @ 1:21 amWhat does the video have to do with “liberals” saying that “we’re overreacting on terror”? Personally, I think training and supporting the terrorists in the first place is terrorism. Now, who was it that did this? And, who was it that supported Saddam since helping to install him in the first place, and then proceeded to during the time when by far most of his crimes were being committed? I just can’t recall. Who was that?KB
kb (8cbc15) — 2/2/2006 @ 4:40 amPatterico, that video may be good at stirring up emotions. But emotions, by definition, aren’t rational. We actually need less emotion and more level-headed thinking.
Psyberian (1cf529) — 2/2/2006 @ 5:12 am“I figure a little reminder now and then can’t hurt.”
There will always be a war on terror.
actus (85218a) — 2/2/2006 @ 6:49 amThat’s, right kb. Anyone looking at the kinds of weapons fielded by the Iraqi military during Operation Desert Shield could tell who helped install Saddam, who armed him and kept him in power.
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 2/2/2006 @ 7:11 amkb,
I encourage you to answer the question posed at this post. Some of the leftists here, like m.croche, are studiously ignoring the question. But I’m sure you want to stand up and be counted!
Patterico (929da9) — 2/2/2006 @ 7:13 amTo fully maximize “The Lord of the Flies” experience, one should paint one’s face and dance around one’s monitor while watching this video. As Simon said, the real “Beast” is within. My point exactly.
Asinistra (c493b3) — 2/2/2006 @ 7:44 amIt looks real to me too. I recall seeing it happen on TV in real time. I also remember people jumping off the roof and plunging to their death below. I remember seeing the dust cloud and people running for their lives as the Towers fell. Yes, indeed, I remember it quite well.
It’s seared in my memory.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 2/2/2006 @ 7:55 amA GREAT reminder to all those softy moonbats out there who discount the vile intent and efficacy of Muslim terrorists.
And a good reminder to redouble our efforts to get the bastards responsible so we make sure it never happens again. Osama Bin Laden, his braintrust, the 15 Saudi Arabian and three Pakistani hijackers/murderers, and the network and conditions that feed al Queda.
Whoops! We’re $200 billion into a war on a MidEast enemy that not only didn’t harbor terrorists, but was a secular state (and enemy of al Queda). Kind of the opposite of the fundamentalist tower bombers. Iraq is now a magnet and a training ground for terrorism. Pentagon just issued a report that our forces are stretched to breaking. And on and on. (Don’t have time to list the catastrophic ramifications here.)
I am glad you linked to this video. To remind everyone that we’re in the wrong country, fighting the wrong enemy, fulfilling the neocons’ fantasies.
jmaharry (74c3ec) — 2/2/2006 @ 3:00 pm“As Simon said, the real ‘Beast’ is within. My point exactly.”
Speak for yourself, Asinistra.
“I am glad you linked to this video. To remind everyone that we’re in the wrong country, fighting the wrong enemy, fulfilling the neocons’ fantasies.”
So this is why Osama has asked for a truce, jmaharry?
And I can’t resist noting that the military has been tasked with having the capacity to fight on two major war fronts simultaneously, for some time now. Are you saying it can’t fight on even one? If so, are you saying we should enlarge the military and increase the spending?
J. Peden (43ee5e) — 2/2/2006 @ 4:30 pmAs the SecDef said: You go to war with the army you have. You also fight the foes you can at the moment. This IS going to be a lengthly struggle (it is a battle of civilizations, after all), and in a war of attrition, you knock-off the weak and convenient first, so that your strategic position is strengthened for the next engagement (see MacArthur’s stepping-stone campaign across the Pacific vs. trying to land on the shores of Japan in ’42).
Drew Kelley (8018ee) — 2/2/2006 @ 5:32 pmJust wondering if the timing of your post is coincidental, or you actually agree with the Powerline boys that there is a sinister plot in the liberal media to stop showing 9/11 footage because it might engender support for president Bush?
For reference, the Powerline quote:
Adam (40d1a3) — 2/2/2006 @ 5:40 pmJ. Peden
I’m saying we should fight and defeat the actual enemy. Al Queda. And Muslim fundamentalists.
We brought an industrial age force to fight a post modern enemy.
That is to say, we’re focusing on one country. While the enemy transcends geo-political boundaries.
I think we should instead be fighting on these fronts:
1. Culture
2. Ideology
3. Economic
4. Political
5. Military
Our strategic focus on #5 allows the enemy to flourish around our point of incursion, and around the world.
So far, our path of unilateral aggression has led to democratic elections in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Palestine, with predictable results: fundamentalist governments inflamed with hatred for the US, the west, and Israel. These are the results of the neocon dream of democracy (and US hegemony) in the Middle East.
jmaharry (74c3ec) — 2/2/2006 @ 6:00 pmRun it against “American Idol” and let me know how it works.
actus (85218a) — 2/2/2006 @ 6:07 pmAdam, shortly, very shortly, following 9/11, the antique MSM began to limit showing footage of the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers. About the same time, within a day or two, we also began to hear calls for “restraint.” Conservatives took note and asked themselves why.
Precisely what motivated MSM’s collective decision to suppress the visual images of 9/11 is open to debate, that it occurred is not. And, Lefty fears it might lead to increased support for GWB certainly played a role. To say otherwise is silly.
Powerline got it right.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 2/2/2006 @ 6:21 pmLimit? from what? didn’t they all run retrospectives a year, or 6 months later?
actus (85218a) — 2/2/2006 @ 6:35 pm#9 jmaharry:
“Whoops! We’re $200 billion into a war on a MidEast enemy that not only didn’t harbor terrorists, but was a secular state (and enemy of al Queda). Kind of the opposite of the fundamentalist tower bombers. Iraq is now a magnet and a training ground for terrorism.”
I guess you missed this little bit of info:
Saddam’s Terror Training Camps What the documents captured from the former Iraqi regime reveal–and why they should all be made public.
It was only a matter of time. OBL just got here first.
Rovin (b348f4) — 2/2/2006 @ 6:41 pmBlack Jack:
Wow, that’s one of the kookier things I’ve heard. So, you find it strange that the news networks would decrease the number of times the 9/11 footage was shown over time? As opposed to the fact that they show “news” and showing the same 3 videos repeatedly for months on end would hardly qualify, especially as there was real news to broadcast. What other massive conspiracy theories do you believe in?
As far as calls for restraint. I remember them coming due to the fact that a whole host of people, such as Chris Mathews, had made outlandish statements suggesting that we nuke the middle east immediately after the attacks. Calls for restraint and level-headed focus were completely appropriate.
Adam (40d1a3) — 2/2/2006 @ 7:01 pmI liked how on 9/11 they would say ‘we have no idea who did this.’ and then show us some file footage of bin laden with an AK47. Restraint. Hah.
actus (85218a) — 2/2/2006 @ 7:16 pmNo, Adam, I don’t “find it strange that news networks would decrease the number of times the 9/11 footage was shown over time?” But, that’s not it, that’s not the point at all. “Over time” is one thing, but starting to suppress it way too quickly is quite another. And, the “massive conspiracy” demands an explanation.
Don’t you find it strange that MSM would suppress powerful visual images of news then quite current. I do, and so does Powerline. I will however agree that, ” Calls for restraint and level-headed focus were completely appropriate.” That’s a different, but related, matter.
Additionally, I find your dismissive attitude revealing. You try to minimize the impact of 9/11 and make excuses for MSM’s perfidy. To you 9/11 simply isn’t of much interest, you say “…especially as there was real news to broadcast.”
Real News? Really now, is that your answer? 3000 of our citizens and guests are murdered by bloodthirsty terrorists and you don’t think it’s news? That’s certainly more than a bit kooky. That’s so wrongheaded as to be either disingenuous or deliberately obtuse.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 2/2/2006 @ 8:07 pmToo quick. Massive conspiracy. It lasted nowhere near as long as the Dean scream, for example.
It certainly is news. And then on 9/12, the news is what is the government going to goddam do about it.
actus (85218a) — 2/2/2006 @ 8:11 pmactus, the censor,
Apparently, some folks don’t, “…find it strange that MSM would suppress powerful visual images of news then quite current.”
I certainly do, and quite a few others do as well.
Remember, those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Let’s keep those images fresh in our minds, and let’s learn from that terrible horror, and let’s make sure the fools among us don’t allow it to happen again. Never forget.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 2/2/2006 @ 8:36 pmBlack Jack:
I have never tried to minimize the events on 9/11. Within days of 9/11, the real news was no longer that we had been attacked. It was the investigation into who had committed the attack, continued search for survivors, etc etc. Those topics were covered, and as a consequence there was less time (and no need) to repeat the footage of airplanes hitting the building. I don’t see a conspiracy there, I just see the normal news cycle. I don’t have to ‘excuse the MSM’s perfidy,’ because there wasn’t any. Almost immediately after the attack it was becoming clear that OBL was responsible, and there was a discussion of what to do next. Should the MSM have ingored all that in order to continue showing footage that everyone had seen? Come on, now. In order for what you say to be true, there would have had to have been a massive conspiracy among executives of all the major MSM companies. That’s more than just a liberal bias, that’s crazy talk. Powerline is way off the deep end here.
Adam (40d1a3) — 2/2/2006 @ 8:38 pmAdam, you say, “I have never tried to minimize the events on 9/11.”
But, you did exactly that in #18 above, “…especially as there was real news to broadcast.”
Black Jack (d8da01) — 2/2/2006 @ 8:50 pmBlack Jack:
I’m not sure why things have to be explained to you multiple times. Real news refers to all the events that happened immediately after 9/11, for example, the search for survivors, the investigation into perpetrators, plans for a response, etc etc. The news was no longer that we had been attacked, every concious person in this country was fully aware of that. How mentioning that fact diminishes the events of 9/11 I still don’t understand.
Maybe I should say, “new news” instead of “real news.” Would that make it more clear for you?
Adam (40d1a3) — 2/2/2006 @ 9:12 pmYou also still need to explain how the entire MSM could simultaneously decide to suppress this footage without engaging in a massive conspiracy. Do you think that all of us liberals just get together and try and figure out how we can use “our media” to hurt the president? Or do we just use some kind of mind meld so that we all know what the others are thinking and doing?
Adam (40d1a3) — 2/2/2006 @ 9:18 pmRovin, the “Weekly Standard” is a neo-con publication, you know, the guys that lied us into the war, and were recognized for a lot of other lies besides, well the PNAC…Project for the New American Century (look it up), signatories, William Kristol being one is the editor, and Rupert Murdoch (the owner)is a neo-con participant, as the media mechanism of the neo-con agenda. Rupert Murdoch owns CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CNBC, NBC and more publications than I could ever type in here. Rather than call me a moonbat, just google those things up and decide for yourself. “Weekly Standard” is the sermon to followers of neo-con war mongers. It is not above lying. There is a lot of other networks though that are benefitting off of Bush’s policies. The military industrial complex we’ve been warned of from Eisenhower owns many networks.
blubonnet (86405d) — 2/2/2006 @ 9:26 pmAdam, “I’m not sure why things have to be explained to you multiple times.”
Here’s some “real news” for you.
The Associated Press reported, the A&E film, “Flight 93,” about the hijacking of the United Airlines plane and passengers’ efforts to retake it, drew 5.9 million viewers when it premiered Monday. It was the most-watched A&E program since the channel launched in 1984.
The film will repeat at noon EST on Saturday and Sunday and at 3 p.m. EST on Wednesday, Feb. 8.
The story of Flight 93 seems to have attracted some rather intense and broadly based interest among the general public. Now, why is that?
So, tell me again how it’s all old hat, nothing but yesterday’s news, and how no one wants to see images of planes crashing into NY’s skyscrapers, or hear about how brave passengers prevented similar attacks on the White House or US Capitol.
You need to get real.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 2/2/2006 @ 9:43 pmBlubonnet said:
“Rupert Murdoch owns CNN, FOX, CNBC, NBC and more publications than I could ever type in here.”
Murdoch owns FOX. General Electric owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC. Time-Warner owns CNN.
What color is the sky on your planet, Blubonnet?
Justice Frankfurter (2dcd84) — 2/2/2006 @ 9:43 pmHere’s a comparison:
On 9-11, four jets crashed into four locations. 3000+ people died. The Twin Towers, which had dominated the Manhattan skyline for years, crashed. The Pentagon, the seat of the US military, had a hole in it.
As Adam puts it, within days, the images and wreckage aren’t really news.
By those standards, for just how long should Abu Ghraib have been in the news? How many people died? How was the economy affected?
By which set of objective standards would Abu Ghraib outweigh 9-11 as news, say, a month out?
Lurking Observer (ae18b9) — 2/2/2006 @ 9:54 pmBlack Jack:
Of course people are interested in 9/11. It’s an extremely important event in this country. It’s not at all surprising that a movie based on these amazing events would be popular. But, that doesn’t make it news. News, is, well, new. The media is supposed to report on the things that are currently happening, not what happened in the past. The newsmedia is there to inform you about the world, not show you pictures of things you want to see. Why is that surprising?
Justice Frankfurter:
Thank you for posting that. I was just about to say the same thing.
Adam (40d1a3) — 2/2/2006 @ 9:55 pmLurking Observer:
If the MSM had switched from covering 9/11 to the hunt for a missing white woman in Bermuda, then you’d be right. As it was, they simply shifted to coverage of new, and newsworthy, information regarding the 9/11 attack. Should they have not reported the fact that there was mounting evidence that OBL was responsible, and instead focused on showing video of the attack itself? Then, you’d be criticizing them for trying to shift the blame due to their liberal love of bin Laden.
Abu Ghraib is a good example. There was an initial report followed by weeks of continued release of new information. Each bit of new information was reported as news. Doesn’t seem odd to me. If Abu Ghraib had happened at the same time as 9/11, you can rest assured that the 9/11 attack would have gotten the bulk of the news time.
Adam (40d1a3) — 2/2/2006 @ 10:10 pmThe 9-11 airplane impact images were played virtually non-stop the first couple days, then scaled back after each angle had been given multiple airings. It would have been tasteless to top every memorial service, every Ground Zero debris shot and FDNY presser on missing men with a replay. The impact images became crucial again when the structural integrity and WTC design characteristics were under review.
They handled the Challenger explosion the same way. Non-stop replays at first, and then isolated images of O-rings and seals — not continuous-loop annihilation.
It would be like having the Zapruder film ‘slo-mo’ play incessantly through JFK’s funeral and the government transition. You re-air it when the Warren Commission takes testimony or Congress holds hearings recreating Dallas.
steve (539a32) — 2/2/2006 @ 10:32 pmWhat was suppressed though? You think there wasn’t enough of those visuals? they were on non-stop.
“The story of Flight 93 seems to have attracted some rather intense and broadly based interest among the general public. Now, why is that?”
Did that movie show the 9/11 impact footage, or did it show other ‘news’ ?
actus (85218a) — 2/3/2006 @ 12:00 amBut Adam,
Even with the continued release of new information in Abu Ghraib, the media kept going back and showing the original pictures. That is quite different from the contued release of new information during the 9/11 attacks.
There may not have been a meeting to “direct” a conspiracy, but the MSM picks stuff up from eqach other continuously. How many networks started using the word “sour” in relation to reaction to SOTU? – and all within a few hours of each other. How many networks “refused” to show the muslim-related cartoons? That all happened the same day. May not be purposely rigged – but the end result is the same. One POV from many different networks. Imagine that….
Specter (466680) — 2/3/2006 @ 7:06 amBy their words and their acts, ye shall know them:
Lefties here are attempting to suppress images of the 9/11 terrorist attack on NY’s Twin Towers. They don’t want you to be reminded of that horrible event. Why?
It’s not news, they say. It was news for a day or two, but not much longer. News must be “new” and so they say the images are outdated. Here, they haven’t yet tried to claim the images are bad for us, that it’s in our best interests to forget all about 9/11. Why, I can see it all now, how they’re only really concerned with our well being, protecting us from fear and bad dreams. Look into the candle’s flame: You’re getting sleepy, verrry sleepy.
Yep, it’s one idiot rationalization after another, but the constant goal is censorship, pure and simple, the Lefties don’t want the American people to see the airplanes hitting the Twin Towers, and they don’t want you to see the people jumping from the rooftop and plunging all that long way down to their death on NY’s streets. The effort to suppress those images is a clear attempt at censorship. Out of sight, out of mind.
The Left attempted to hijack the 9/11 memorial in NY. Next they tried to build the memorial to Flight 93 in the shape of Islam’s symbol, a green crescent. Down the memory hole.
Whatever motivates the Left these days, it isn’t love of country, it isn’t a desire for truth, and it isn’t in America’s best interests.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 2/3/2006 @ 7:37 amYes. With all the power of a comment post. I hereby SUPPRESS!
actus (85218a) — 2/3/2006 @ 8:04 amI never knew that there are no “lefties” other than actus and those posting comments on blogs. It lloks like we really have been overeracting to the notion of liberal dominated media.
eddie haskell (51058c) — 2/3/2006 @ 8:50 amSpecter:
That doesn’t come close to explaining it. The Powerline post, and some of the commenters here have suggested that the images were supressed in an attempt to decrease support for President Bush. Such an intent implies conspiracy. I’m not arguing that the media (this includes both liberal and conservative organizations) does not behave in a herd-like manner at times or that it doesn’t make mistakes. But, if you think there’s some kind of overarching liberal conspiracy to shape the news in order to hurt our country and president then you’re a loon.
Adam (40d1a3) — 2/3/2006 @ 9:45 amJustice Frankfurter,
Okay, I stand corrected the media ordeal is a little more complicated, but nevertheless, still a concern. To better understand Rupert Murdoch and the media consolidation problem:
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?cbiJRJ80VF&b=122948
http://www.freepress.net/content/ownership
blubonnet (dc52ec) — 2/3/2006 @ 11:38 pmI was watching Imus on MSNBC that morning. They cut away from the show when word came in that a plane had crashed into one tower of the World Trade Center. Speculation centered around another incident like the one where a b25 crashed into the Empire State Building back in 1945. Everybody was certain that it was an accident.
Then MSNBC showed what was clearly a large passenger plane flying straight and level into the other tower. My very first thought upon seeing this was, “That was no accident.”
No video, this was live. I don’t know if Patterico’s referring to the MSNBC shot, but I can assert with absolute confidence that the second plane was shot flying into the tower. How can I say this? Because it was a live shot.
Alan Kellogg (565f63) — 2/4/2006 @ 12:40 amFollow Up
No, it’s not the MSNBC version. That one shows the plane flying into the tower. The studio talent is interrupted by the on scene talent, who reports that a large plane has been spotted in the area. A jetliner is then shown flying right into the building. Straight and level. The video Patterico links to shows what happened after from a different viewpoint.
Sometimes you are in the right place at the right time to catch things as they happen.
Alan Kellogg (565f63) — 2/4/2006 @ 12:47 amAlan,
As I recall, the second plane came in at about a 25 to 30 degree angle. If the images hadn’t been suppressed so quickly, we’d have the visuals and wouldn’t have to try to remember the details.
9/11, never forget!
Black Jack (d8da01) — 2/4/2006 @ 6:42 amAn Idea.
paul (464e99) — 2/4/2006 @ 10:23 am1.Stage a Second ‘Day of Anger’.
2. Ask for volunteers from Special Ops from Canada,US,UK,Denmark,and Spain.
3. Have each volunteer pick one masked, sign carrying Wahabist Islamofacist, follow them away at the end of the demonstration and at a predetermined time kill them all at once.
4. Each volunteer goes home and has a drink to a job well done.
5. Repeat the process until you stage a day of anger and no one shows.
I wonder why noone has thought to use paul’s great idea!
actus (85218a) — 2/4/2006 @ 12:03 pmRandom thoughts on a Super Bowl Sunday,
actus, when the teams huddle up before a play, do you think they’re talking about you?
Black Jack (d8da01) — 2/5/2006 @ 2:28 pmnot me, but my suppression of 9/11 videos.
actus (85218a) — 2/5/2006 @ 5:10 pmBlack Jack, come up with some more funnies, you already used that line. Myself being the recipient of your chuckles.
Hey, doubters, just get onto your search engine and type in : “911” evidence, and see what you come up with. You will of course find those trying to discredit the multitude of sources of evidence, and a few genuine crazies, but mostly you will find a massive growing movement trying to get the truth out, with much subsantial information making their points.
blubonnet (dc52ec) — 2/5/2006 @ 5:45 pmYep, blu, it was you. But, since yesterday was Super Bowl Sunday, I thought it was appropriate to bring it out again, dust it off, and put it on actus. I thought the shoe fit rather well. Birds of a feather, don’t ya know…
Black Jack (d8da01) — 2/6/2006 @ 9:06 amAnd, blu, if we doubters do take your advice and go looking at “9/11 evidence,” how do you suggest we differentiate “a few crazies” from the more responsible voices, like yours for instance?
Black Jack (d8da01) — 2/6/2006 @ 9:24 amBlack Jack,
blubonnet (dc52ec) — 2/6/2006 @ 10:23 amDespite the words that fly around furiously, I give you guys respect for having a reasonable sense of discernment. Unfortunately, you just haven’t realized that the MSM is what defines reality out there for you. The MSM is, as I’ve stated til you guys are sick to death of it, owned by war profiteers. Remember, the golden rule is: He with the gold rules.
Ipse dixit:
blu, you say, “I give you guys respect…” Well, here’s a few recent examples of the “respect” you’ve shown to those who disagree with you:
Where is your humanity?
you not only care little about our country, but nothing about humanity worldwide.
Oh, and your ignorance about the elections just shows your ignorance,
You’re a good German. You’re a lousy American though, to accept these horrors, and not be pained that this is the face of America.
As expected, a common sheep like response!
blu, I’m not sure I care to receive any more of what you presume to call “respect.”
Black Jack (d8da01) — 2/6/2006 @ 11:39 amBlack Jack, okay, point taken. Yes it upsets me that you guys are standing behind and promoting even the criminal activities of Bu$hCo., and have shown my outrage. So, I have been pretty severe in my response, but hey, I’m responding with as much derision as has been coming at me.
However, I just believe that you are just compliant products of the war profiteering MSM. So, I am attempting to get over my outrage at you guys that have been supporting this demise of our country, and our decency. I don’t regard afterall, it your fault, since you can’t fathom the distortions that they are, through your war profiteering news sources. Although our opinions differ in extremes, I still consider you my friends, whom sporting debate is our game. However the topics are not trivial. The seriousness of what is going on in the world, compliments of the USSA, make me want to spit fire. So, the debate gets a little rough and tough. Rightfully so.
Incidentally, BJ, you started out branding me in a negative term…moonbat, which I have come to accept as an affectionate reference to myself, if you intended it or not.
Have you ever actually seen a bat up close? I saw one recently. They look like little puppy dogs with wings. The one I saw had big brown eyes, little floppy ears, and except for the wings, had a furry body. Really cute. So, I will take it as a complement. LOL
blubonnet (dc52ec) — 2/6/2006 @ 12:18 pmjmaharry #13: your nuance precedes itself. Can’t we all just get along?
J. Peden (934576) — 2/6/2006 @ 8:36 pm