The troofers seem to think so and based on the interview they have a video of after a screening they may be right.
Here’s his reasoning for why we need to investigate 9/11 more.
“I’ve filmed there before down at the Pentagon– before 9/11– there’s got to be at least 100 cameras, ringing that building, in the trees, everywhere. They’ve got that plane coming in with 100 angles. How come with haven’t seen the straight– I’m not talking about stop-action photos, I’m talking about the video. I want to see the video; I want to see 100 videos that exist of this,” Moore said.
“Why don’t they want us to see that plane coming into the building? Because, if you know anything about flying a plane, when you’re going 500 miles per hour, if you’re off by that much, you’re in the river. So, they hit a building that’s only 5 stories high…[unclear] that expertly. I believe that there will be answers in that video tape and we should demand that that tape is released.”
Michael Moore was not vague or bashful in discussing 9/11 truth– rather, he demanded a “new investigation before we get too far away from this– to find out the whole truth.”
“And I intend, in my own way, to find some answers,” Moore added. “Thank you for doing whatever you’re doing.”
They’ve got like, 100 cameras, so naturally, all of them would be, like, trained on the spot that was hit. Now that would be suspicious.
I’m not sure why he can’t accept that closed-circuit security often uses stop action to save storage space. I guess one would expect the Pentagon to have super-fancy high-rez security cameras in their parking lot, I have no idea why, maybe to catch Osama Bin Laden roller-blading around the parking lot. But what about having a video like this one:
would be any more convincing than the stop-action images, the reports of the people there who saw the wreckage, the hundreds of people 395 who saw the plane hit the building, the wife of the solicitor general, Barbara Olson dying on the plane etc.? Or how about how it’s just plain stupid to think otherwise for about a billion different reasons?
And do you guys know where the “cruise missile” theory came from? A quote mine of Mike Walters – a USA today reporter who said, “it was like a cruise missile – with wings” . The problem was that the loose changers troofers removed the “with wings” and ignored his appeals to set the record straight. Which he does here:
For a man who used footage of the towers being struck by planes for one of his movies, you’d think he’d be beyond the idiotic no-plane conspiracy theories about the Pentagon. People have pointed out, one pal of mine in particular, that Moore is a bit, well, cranky. I would hate to see the good work that was done with Sicko go to waste by embracing 9/11 truth. I don’t think Moore is a crank just yet. Not everyone who falls for BS is going to convert to being a full-fledged crank, he might look into it a little deeper and see that these guys are just wacky conspiracy theorists.
What worries me, is that he might look a little deeper and accidentally fall down the rabbit hole.