[independent media
centre] Volunteer with IMC Hamilton!

Subscribe to regular news updates:


SEARCH

select medium:

search:

(leave blank if you wish to browse all entries)


publish
instantly upload your audio, video, photo or text directly from your browser

newswire
up to the minute coverage of the protests and issues.

background
in-depth analysis on capitalism and global economics from znet

volunteer
links to allies
contact
support us


other imc's:

www.indymedia.org

Pacific
adelaide
aotearoa
brisbane
jakarta
melbourne
sydney

Africa
nigeria
south africa

Europe
austria
athens
barcelona
belgium
bristol
euskal herria
finland
germany
ireland
italy
madrid
netherlands
norway
portugal
russia
sweden
switzerland
thessaloniki
united kingdom

Canada
alberta
hamilton
maritimes
montreal
ontario
ottawa
québec
thunder bay
vancouver
victoria
windsor

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
brasil
chiapas
colombia
ecuador
mexico
qollasuyu
rosario
uruguay
tijuana

India
india

Western Asia
israel
jerusalem

United States
arizona
atlanta
austin
baltimore
boston
buffalo
central florida
chicago
danbury, ct
dc
eugene
hawaii
houston
ithaca
la
madison
maine
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new jersey
new mexico
north carolina
nyc
new york capitol
philadelphia
portland
richmond
rocky mountain
rochester
san diego
san francisco bay area
santa cruz, ca
seattle
st louis
urbana-champaign
utah
vermont
western mass

IMC Projects
satellite tv news
print
radio
video
climate IMC

IMC Process
process
discussion
tech
volunteer
mailinglists
fbi/legal updates
indymedia faq

 

 


technlogy by cat@lyst and IMC Geeks

 

 

email this story | download as PDF | print article

Did F77 hit the Pentagon? Eyewitness accounts examined.
Gerard Holmgren 2:00am Mon Jun 17 '02 (Modified on 12:28am Wed Jul 24 '02)
gerardholmgren@hotmail.com article#1786

Examines the apparent contradiction between potographic evidence and eyewitness evidence.

DID FLIGHT 77 HIT THE PENTAGON ?

EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS EXAMINED

by Gerard Holmgren

gerardholmgren@hotmail.com copywrite Gerard Holmgren June 4 2002

This article may be freely copied and distributed without permission providing it is
not for commercial purposes. Please include the authors name, the URL and the
copywrite notice.

There is controversy over the question of whether AA F77 actually did hit
the Pentagon on Sept 11. It centres around a large amount of photographic
evidence that the damage to the Pentagon is neither big enough, nor of the
right shape to have been caused by a 757 jet, that there is insufficient sign
of wreckage or bodies, and that power poles which apparently should
have been in the path of the jet are still standing. The damage appears to
be more consistent with having been caused by a bomb and/or a missile
or small jet. See the following sites for some of this evidence.

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm
http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/pent.html

The strength of the counter argument seems to be with a body of eyewitness
evidence that a large passenger jet, some even specifying an AA 757, did
hit the Pentagon. So I set out to find every eyewitness account, if possible, and
subject them to close scrutiny, to see if this apparent contradiction could be
resolved.

That a large explosion took place at the Pentagon, that the Pentagon wall was
substantially damaged, and that F77 is missing, are not in dispute. If the damage
to the Pentagon was caused by impact from a flying object, this does not
neccesarily prove that it was F77. Possible flying objects which could be
considered are large passenger jets, (such as a 757) small passenger jets,
a military craft, light aircraft, a helicopter or a cruise missile. Therefore, for
the purpose of this research, eyewitness accounts which report seeing a flying
object strike the wall of the Pentagon, but are unable to be clear about what
that object was, do not neccesarily support the theory that it was F77. It is
not neccessary that the witness should be specific that it was an AA 757.
Uncertainty about such detail is completely understandable in such a situation.
In fact in many cases, it makes the report more credible. Eyewitnesses who
are vague on fine details are generally more likely to be telling the truth than
those who claim to have meticulously taken in everything. But there should
be some indication that the object was a large passenger jet, and could not
have been a much smaller jet, a military craft, a light plane, a helicopter or a
cruise missile.
Also of little use are reports which claim to have seen a large jet flying too
low about the same time that the Pentagon was hit, but do not explicitly
claim to have seen the collision. While such reports obviously provide grounds
for suspicion that the jet may have been the object which struck the Pentagon,
I am only interested in reports which clearly claim to have seen a large passenger
jet flying in the air, and then to have actually witnessed it hitting the wall of the
Pentagon.
Reports should preferably have been published no later than Sept 14, although
this is flexible depending upon the other merits of the account. The earlier the report,
the greater it's weight.The account should be internally consistent. The more
comprehensive the statement, the greater it's weight. A one line quote gives
little that can be critically examined, wheras an extensive interview gives an
opportunity to test the credibility of the account. This does not mean that
one line quotes are inadmissable, but their value is small. The account
should be verifiable, which can be satisfied in a number of ways.1) The
witness was identifiable and available for future questioning. 2) The
account was captured on video at what can be clearly identified as close to
the the time and place of the incident. 3) That the reporter who sourced the
quote is able to identify themselves as the one having interviewed the witness,
and is able to give details of where, when and how the quote was sourced.
4) If a person claiming retrospectively to have been at the scene can provide
evidence such as photos, phone calls, documented travel plans, credit card use,
etc which gives good reason to believe that they were there.

A certain amount of common sense must be used in interpreting these guidelines.
The point is that I am not interested in accounts which could be second, third
or fourth hand and give no opportunity for critical analysis. If a newspaper gives
a one line quote from an anonymous witness and gives no details of when,
where or how the quote was gathered, does not specify who wrote the story
and gives no other details, then this is not an eywitness account. Is it hearsay.

Having set out the parameters, I began searching for eyewitness accounts.
My first source was the following site
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm>

It srongly criticises the theory that F77 did not hit the Pentagon and as part
of its rebuttal, lists 19 referenced, weblinked eyewitness accounts to the
event. At first reading it seemed to be an impressive library, but on closer
examination, I found that 10 of the 19 accounts did not meet a basic
condition. This is because the witnesses did not actually claim to see the
Pentagon hit by the plane. What they claimed was to have seen a plane
flying way too low, and then immediately afterwards to have seen smoke
or an explosion coming from the direction of the Pentagon
which was out of sight at the time of the collision.(or some variation on this)
Here's an example of two which I ruled out.

"On a Metro train to National Airport, Allen Cleveland looked out
the window to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon. 'I thought,
"There's no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,"' he said.
Before he could process that thought, he saw 'a huge mushroom cloud.
The lady next to me was in absolute hysterics.'"
- Our Plane Is Being Hijacked </gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp%2Ddyn/A14365%2D2001Sep11%3Flanguage=printer>." Washington Post, 12 Sep 2001

Even the full report, complete with paraphrasing by the writer does not have
this witness seeing the alleged collision. It becomes even thinner when
stripped down to what the witness is actually quoted as saying.

I thought, "There's no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,"
' The lady next to me was in absolute hysterics.'"

Here's the second example.

"As I approached the Pentagon, which was still not quite in view,
listening on the radio to the first reports about the World Trade
Center disaster in New York, a jetliner, apparently at full throttle
and not more than a couple of hundred yards above the ground,
screamed overhead. ... Seconds before the Pentagon came into
view a huge black cloud of smoke rose above the road ahead.
I came around the bend and there was the Pentagon billowing
smoke, flames and debris, blackened on one side and with a
gaping hole where the airplane had hit it."
- "Eyewitness at the Pentagon </gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.humanevents.org/articles/09%2D17%2D01/regnery.html>.
" Human Events, 17 Sep 2001
If you read this account carefully, it is not a direct eyewitness account to a
collision. It claims to have seen a plane too low, and then to have seen the
smoke from the Pentagon which was not in sight at the time.The obvious
deduction is that the plane must have been responsible for the collision,
but because of the puzzling contradiction between photographic evidence
and eyewitness evidence, such deductions are not sufficient in this case.
We need witnesses who actually saw it hit.

This left 9 accounts which claimed to directly witness a collision.
On second reading, one of these didn't qualify, because the report
paraphrased the alleged sighting of the collision, rather than directly
quoting the witness.

"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of
Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of
the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's
military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock.
I turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?"
Nobody could believe it.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts' </gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/attack%2Dusat.htm>
." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001
This is the quote, unembellished by inserted commentary.

'There was a big boom.. Everybody was in shock. I turned around to
the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe
it.'"

The witness does not even describe a plane. Nothing except a big boom.
We already know that an explosion of some kind took place at the Pentagon,
so this quote tells us absolutely nothing about what caused it. When I
checked the original source of this report, no particular interviewer or reporter
actually claimed responsibility for interviewing Kizildrgli. In fact there was no
source or context given at all. The quote, along with the added paraphrasing
was simply inserted into a story, without verification. Any reference to a plane
or a collision was completely the creation of the writer. How did they know
his name, unless somebody interviewed him? And if he was interviewed,
why was it not described when and where, and why did they not directly
quote any statement he might have made about a plane and a collision?
Why was it neccesary to paraphrase everything he described, except the noise?
We have no evidence that this person said anything about seeing
a plane hit the Pentagon. An extensive media search found no reference to him
other than this quote. This is not an eyewitness account of the alleged collision.
A few others in this list come into the same category as the Kizildrgri quote,
but I will examine them too, because they raise some interesting questions.

"I was supposed to have been going to the Pentagon Tuesday morning
at about 11:00am (EDT) and was getting ready, and thank goodness
I wasn't going to be going until later. It was so shocking, I was listening
to the news on what had happened in New York, and just happened to
look out the window because I heard a low flying plane and then I saw
it hit the Pentagon. It happened so fast... it was in the air one moment
and in the building the next..."
- "U.S. Under Attack: Your Eyewitness Accounts </gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking%5Fpoint/newsid%5F1537000/1537530.stm>." BBC News, 14 Sep 2001
This is better because the witness is actually describing the collision in their
own words. However, upon checking the BBC source, there was a serious
problem with the verification. It's not an interview. We don't know who
sourced this quote or how. It's simply posted on the website as a "comment".
How was it sourced? An unsolicited email? A phone call? Hearsay?
Was the witness interviewed? Who knows? And the identification of the
witness? " K.M. Pentagon City, USA " Unidentifiable and therefore not
available for questioning. No details of the method of communication.
No evidence of face to face contact with a journalist. No transcript of
any conversation.And the date of posting? Sept 14. An unsourced,
anonymous account, delivered 3 days later, by an unknown means,
and not available for questioning is not an eywitness account. It is hearsay.
There is no way to verify how this quote originated.
But let's assume for a moment that the quote is a genuine eyewitness
account. Note that the witness does not give any indication as to what type
of plane. It is simply described as "a low flying plane." Furthermore, the
witness confirms that (s)he did not get a good enough look at it to make any
assessment.
"It happened so fast... it was in the air one moment and in the building
the next..."

So it could have been any kind of plane, or even a cruise missile which can
easily be mistaken for a jet in such circumstances. A helicopter is probably
out of the question.There's some photos of cruise missiles at

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm

if you want to check the similarity with that of a small jet aircraft.
Regardless of whether we accept this quote as admissible, it provides us
with nothing except evidence that a flying object, probably a plane, hit
the Pentagon. This provides no evidence that it was F77.

"USA Today.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: An American Airlines
jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work
Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off
the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds
later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the
horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the
Pentagon 100 yards away. 'My first thought was he's not going to make
it across the river to [Reagan] National Airport. But whoever was flying
the plane made no attempt to change direction,' Sucherman said. 'It was
coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle-almost like a
heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course.'"
- "Journalist Witnesses Pentagon Crash </gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.eweek.com/article/0%2C3658%2Cs%25253D704%252526a%25253D15161%2C00.asp>." eWeek.com, 13 Sep 2001

Here we have an identifiable witness.But I have a problem with the
assertion that he "saw it all". Again, the writer described the collsion,
and the plane. Here is the quote,unembellished.

'My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to
[Reagan] National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made
no attempt to change direction,' Sucherman said. 'It was coming in
at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle-almost like a heat-
seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course.'"

He doesn't say anything about seeing an American Airlines jetliner.He says
"the plane", which, as in the previous quote, could mean any of the
possibilities listed earlier, with the exception of a helicopter. And according
to this description, he would not possibly have had time to identify it.
If the object was travelling at 400 mph, and Sucherman had a clear view
for about 100 yards either side of his car, he would have seen it for about
1 second. The writer's description of the plane travelling 100 yards in 2
seconds, gives it a speed of 102 mph. Sucherman doesn't say anything
about seeing the alleged collsion.
But because of Sucherman's media connections, I decided to pursue this
further. Perhaps he may have made a more complete statement, reported
elsewhere. One would expect so, if he did see the collision. He's an editor
of "USA today", so one would expect him to have good access to major
media outlets. So I searched every significant media outlet which could
conceivably have printed, broadcast, televised or web published any
reference to Joel Sucherman seeing anything hit the Pentagon. There were
no matches. An editor of "USA today" has his own scoop- his very own
sighting of the Pentagon crash and yet his story is not published in any media
outlet, apart from that referenced on the "Urban legends" site? So I checked
the reference. It was posted on eweek.com on Sept 13, in an article written
by John Dodge. Later in the article Dodge writes

"Off to the west, Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make
a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second
attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'"
At that point, he sped away to the office."

As we will see, a number of other witnesses claim that there was a serious traffic
jam around the area at the time, so depending upon details of the surrounding
roads, somebody may not telling the truth about this, but at this stage we
don't know who.

So Sucherman sped back to his office but apparently didn't file any report
with the media organisation that he works for. His only publicity about having
witnessed such a startling and newsworthy event was to allow himself to be
interviewed by John Dodge of eweek, posted 2 days later. Under these
circumstances, I have to be sceptical about whether he actually saw anything
newsworthy. So I did a search to find out what eweek.com is all about.Here's
the Yahoo match.
eWeek <http://srd.yahoo.com/srst/339336/eweek.com/1/1/T=1021283154/F=8943e731f29347477845cb91c16d04e1/*http://www.eweek.com/> - news,
product reviews, and features that cover the developments in the computer
industry. Formerly PC Week.
http://www.eweek.com/
More sites about: Computer and Internet Magazines <http://srd.yahoo.com/srctg/70338/eweek.com/1/1/*http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/News_and_Media/Magazines/>

A computer industry magazine? A scoop any media figure can only dream of
falls right into the lap of an editor of a major media organization and it's
relegated to a two bit article in a PC magazine? He (allegedly) directly
witnessed the crash and doen't give any interview apart from this?
So I did a wider search, simply for Joel Sucherman and found a few
references to him in his role as a multimedia editor for USA today.com.
Most of the stories related to sport or computers. There was nothing
even remotely connected to sept 11. It would therefore appear that Dodge's
article was more of the "human interest type" than anything seriously connected
with what happened at the Pentagon. Sucherman obviously has a connection
with the world of computer publications. So this is written in the context of
"one of our guys was there," in much the same way that a local football
club might publish in it's newsletters that one of the members was a
witness at a robbery last week. I found a link to a video of Sucherman
relating his experience at

http://www.geocites.com/hooch43us/extra.html

but was unable to get the video to work, so I was unable to assess it.
I am therefore satisfied on the basis of my research (although one can
never be 100% sure) that except for the inaccessible video, Sucherman's
account has not been published anywhere except John Dodge's eweek
article, and that Sucherman has not given any other interviews or made
any other statements on his experience. Sucherman doesn't give any
indication what kind of plane it was, and doesn't say that he saw the
collision.Subject to uncertainty about the video, he is not an eyewitness
to large passenger jet hitting the Pentagon wall.

"'I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and
slammed into the Pentagon,' eyewitness Mike Walter said of the
plane that hit the military complex. 'Huge explosion, great ball of
fire, smoke started billowing out, and then it was just chaos on the
highway as people either tried to move around the traffic and go
down either forward or backwards,' he said."
- "Witnesses and Leaders on Terrorist Attacks </gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/attack.in.their.words/>." CNN,
11 Sep 2001
A check of the original transcript ( 4.58 pm) shows that Walter does refer
to seeing an American Airlines jet. His only quote with regard to the collision
was the section quoted above.
He doesn't actually say that he saw it slam into the Pentagon, but that might
be what he meant. We can't tell from this quote, but we should be able to
find plenty of media references to his testimony, because by an extraordinary
coincidence, Mike Walter also happens to work for "USA today."

Bloomberg news reported on Sept 11 at 3.26 pm and again at 4.23 pm
(so this interview is the earliest record of a Mike Walter statement, preceding
the CNN quote by about 80 minutes)

Mike Walter, of USA Today, watched the plane descend as he was
stuck in traffic. "I said 'that plane is really flying low,"' he said in
an interview. " It disappeared and I heard the explosion and saw
a ball of fire. It was an American Airlines plane. You saw a big
silver plane and those double A's."

So in his first interview he clearly states that he did not see the collision.

The press association reported

Eyewitness Mike Walter, a journalist, said he had seen the flight
crash as he drove to work.

"It was like a Cruise missile with wings," he said.

"I saw parts of the plane. The debris was on the overpass. I saw
these military units run out with stretchers and set up a triage."

As we have already established, Walter has not actually made any statement
to the effect that he saw the plane hit the Pentagon. This report has nothing
to change that, but paraphrases in such a way that this misleading impression
is conveyed.

On sept 12, the Baltimore Sun referred to Walter and but only quoted
"I saw a big ball of fire". The same day the Boston Globe reported

Mike Walter, a reporter with USA Today, was stuck in traffic during
his commute to work, listening to the radio reports of the World Trade
Center catastrophe when he saw the American Airlines jetliner fly over
too low and too fast. Still it took him several moments to realize what
was about to happen. "At first it didn't register," he said. "I see planes
coming into National [airport] all the time. But it was so low."

He watched the plane pass over a hill separating him from the Pentagon
and disappear. Then the boom and the flames climbing into the air.

Again, an explicit statement that he did not see the collision, although this time
stated by commentary, not Walter himself.

Also on Sept 12, The Milwakee Sentinal Journal quoted
"It was typical morning rush hour, and no one was moving. I said
to myself, that plane is really low. Then it disappeared and I heard
the explosion and saw the fireball."

The Washington Times of Sept 12 picked up the CNN quote, almost word
for word (without sourcing it) but added that Walter was on his way to work
at "USA today's television operation". So where is USA today's TV report,
featuring Mike Walter?

So all the interviews which Walter gave on Sept 11 clearly indicated that he
did not see the collision. What did he say on Sept 12?

On Sept 12 6.00am ET, Bryant Gumbel from CBS interviewed Walter.
Mr. MIKE WALTER (Witness): Good morning, Bryant. GUMBEL: I
know we spoke earlier, but obviously, some folks are just joining us.
Take us through what you saw yesterday morning.

Mr. WALTER: Well, as--as we pointed out earlier, Bryant, I was on an
elevated area of Highway 27 and I had a very good view. I was stuck
in traffic. We weren't moving and--and I could see over in the distance
the American Airlines jet as it kind of banked around, pivoted and then
took a steep dive right into the Pentagon. There was no doubt in my
mind watching this that whoever was at the controls knew exactly what
he was doing. It was full impact, a huge fireball, thick column of smoke
and, you know, pandemonium after that. I mean, bedlam. Everyone
was trying to escape the area; people very, very frightened.

GUMBEL: Did you see it hit the Pentagon? Was the plane coming in
horizontally or did it, in fact, go on its wing as--as it impacted the building?

Mr. WALTER: You know, the--the--the--there were trees there that
kind of obstructed it, so I kind of--I saw it go in. I'm not sure if it
turned at an angle. I've heard some people say that's what it did.
All I know is it--it created a huge explosion and massive fireball
and--and you knew instantaneously that--that everybody on that
plane was dead. It was completely eviscerated.

And from the same show
GUMBEL: Tell me, if you could, about the manner in which the--the
plane struck the building. I ask that because, in the pictures we have
seen, it appears to be a gash in the side of the Pentagon as if the plane
went in vertically as opposed to horizontally. Can you tell me anything
about that?

Mr. WALTER: Well, as I said, you know, there were trees obstructing my
view, so I saw it as it went--and then the--then the trees, and then I saw
the--the fireball and the smoke. Some people have said that the plane
actually sent on its side and in that way. But I can't tell you, Bryant. I
just know that what I saw was this massive fireball, a huge explosion
and--and a--the thick column of smoke and then an absolute bedlam on
those roads as people were trying to get away. I mean, some people were
going on the emergency lanes, and they were going forward while others
were trying to back up. But one woman in front of me was in a panic
and waving everyone back, saying, 'Back up. Back up. They've just hit
the Pentagon.' It was--it was total chaos.

Walter spoke to NBC at 7.00 ET the same day
Mr. MIKE WALTER (Eyewitness): It kind of disappeared over this
embankment here for a moment and then a huge explosion, flames
flying into the air, and--and just chaos on the road.

So, on tueday afternoon, Walter was explicitly stating that he did not see the
collision. It seems that he had a think about it overnight, and at 6.00 on
wednesday morning, confidently told Bryant Gumbel that he had, but was
so flustered by the simple question of whether he actually saw it hit the
Pentagon, and what angle the plane was on, that he immediately backed
off preferring to concentrate on the fireball and the panic, and by the time
he spoke to NBC an hour later, had retreated to his earlier story that he
didn't see the collision.

This is why eyewitnesses must be identifiable and available for questioning.
It also demonstrates why extensive interviews carry more weight than
short quotes which can't be subject to critical scrutiny. Who would have
guessed the tangled mess of Walter's statements, if they had only seen
this quoted ?

I had a very good view. I was stuck in traffic. We weren't moving
and--and I could see over in the distance the American Airlines
jet as it kind of banked around, pivoted and then took a steep
dive right into the Pentagon. There was no doubt in my mind
watching this that whoever was at the controls knew exactly
what he was doing. It was full impact...

And let's take a closer look at this statement, made to Gumbel.

"I was on an elevated area of Highway 27 and I had a very good view.
I was stuck in traffic."

An hour later he contradicted this with "It kind of disappeared over this
embankment here for a moment "

But if the 6.00 statement was true, then lots of other people, stuck in the
same traffic, should also have had a very good view. So presumably there
should be plenty of other eyewitnesses who saw it " as it kind of banked
around, pivoted and then took a steep dive right into the Pentagon."
Keep this in mind as the search continues.

I searched about 100 more media reports of Mike Walter,and couldn't
find anything different. Incredibly, I couldn't find a single interview with him
or reference to him on USA today. This account is too confused and
contradictory to have any credibility, and he explicitly stated several
times, including his earliest statement, that he did not see the collision.
On the one occasion when he changed this, he backed off under questioning.
Mike Walter does not qualify as an eyewitness to a large passenger
jet hitting the Pentagon.

"'I saw the tail of a large airliner. ... It plowed right into the Pentagon,
" said an Associated Press Radio reporter who witnessed the crash.
'There is billowing black smoke.'"
America's Morning of Terror </gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.channelonenews.com/articles/terrorism/wrapup/>.
" ChannelOne.com, 2001
Yet another media worker who (allegedly) witnessed it. Extraordinary!
The original source gives no details. Simply a statement that that's what
an AP radio reporter said. But in a Yahoo search, I found the same
comment attributed to AP radio reporter Dave Winslow.

http://netscape.com/ex/shak/news/stories/0901/20010911collapse.html

So surely Winslow must have given some interviews. Must have done a
radio report for AP. Apparently not. I couldn't find any electronic AP reports
that had anything to do with Winslow. All I could find from AP was two written
reports.The first was a press release

http://www.apbroadcast.com/AP+Broadcast/About+Us/Press+Releases/AP+Broadcast+Details+Coverage+of+Tragic+Terrorist+Attacks.htm

This raised even more questions. It refers to Winslow witnessing the crash,
without actually quoting him.

AP Radio Reporter Dave Winslow witnessed the explosion at the
Pentagon and confirmed that it was a plane that caused the
destruction. As a result, AP members were first to know that it was
an American Airlines jet that had gone down.

So where is the Winslow's broadcast? And how did they know that it was a
AA jet? Winslow doesn't mention that in the quote, and there doesn't
appear to be any other media record of him.What did he say that confirmed
it was a AA jet? Did he mention it off the record to colleagues in the office?
Why not let Winslow speak for himself? Given the experience with Mike
Walter's account, I would like to be asking Winslow some questions. Such
as "What do mean you saw the tail of a large plane? Where was the rest
of it? Did you see any other part of it? Do you mean that the tail plowed into
the Pentagon? Or are you assuming that some other part of the jet that you
didn't see hit the Pentagon? Did you see the tail before or after the collision?"
"Did you actually see the collision?" etc.

The other AP print report is by Ron Fournier at
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/specialnews/Terror/2000h.htm

and again trots out the identical quote of the elusive Dave Winslow. So,
did Winslow make the quote directly to Fournier? Exactly how, when and
who is the original source of this quote? Doesn't Winslow have anything
other to say than these 19 words?
There are a few slight variations on Fournier's article scatterered around
the net at different pages, but all of them repeat the Winslow quote identically,
with no elaboration or sourcing.
BBC News also reported the quote, but added an intruiging twist to it at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1537000/1537500.stm

It said that Democrat Consultant Paul Begala saw an explosion at the
Pentagon.

Associated Press reporter Dave Winslow told Mr Begala he saw
"the tail of a large airliner... It ploughed right into the Pentagon".

So the quote is second hand, or possibly third hand. BBC reports this
without specifying where it got Begala's story from, and without any identified
journalist taking responsibilty for the story. So this is a case of "Somebody
told the BBC that Begala told them that Dave Winslow told him." I haven't
found any record of any BBC reporters at the scene to interview eyewitnesses.
But then, I haven't found any record of any press at the scene to conduct
interviews. We have names of witnesseses, 18 of them, on the urbans legends
site, but no information about how any of these names were sourced
(discounting those press members who were actually witnesses themselves).
So where did the BBC get the information that Begala had been spoken to
by Winslow? Is this the original source of the quote? Second or third hand
hearsay? Did Begala also directly contact Fournier and tell him of
Winslow's quote, (which would make it second hand to Fournier) and
Fournier fail to mention this? Or did Winslow dish up the identical words
to both of them independently, complete with the ... between" airliner" and
"it"?
The fact that both the BBC report and the Fournier article put the dots in the
identical place, means that one has lifted it from the other's web posted or
faxed report. Both reports are dated Sept 11. The BBC report is 18.54
GMT which is approximately 3.00 pm on the East Coast of the USA. The AP
report does not give a time so we can't be sure who published it first.
But we can run through some possibilties. If the BBC posted it first, then
Fournier has used a 3rd hand quote, and presented it as first hand, without
aknowledging the source which presented it 2nd hand. If Fournier's quote
was first, then the BBC has invented the part about Begala. But why would
they ficticously represent a direct quote as being second hand? It's more
likely to be the other way around. Unless they contacted Fournier and
asked him about the source of the quote, and he told them off the record
that it was second hand from Begala - something which was ommited
from his article.

The ... between the words "airliner" and "It" might seem to imply that
Winslow actually said more than this, and that the quote has been edited.
But curiously, the same words are repeated verbatim in every media
reference to Winslow that I could find. A few had dispensed with the ...
giving it the appearance of an unedited quote. One had replaced it with -
also creating this impression.
Obviously, once this enigmatic quote was out there, other media just
picked it up and repeated it, without question. It multiplied itself throughout
the media like a computer virus, without anybody actually tracking down
Winslow and asking him to verify, or elaborate. If Winslow actually saw
the collision, surely there must be more to his account than this.

A search for "Dave Winslow" found 13 newspaper reports, all for for
Sept 11 or 12 and all with the identical quote, similarly unverified and
unquestioned, with no elaboration, although some ommitted "there is
billowing black smoke." No-one claims to have interviewed Winslow
and I couldn't find any transcript of a broadcast by him. Determined to
get to the botttom of this, I did a search with unrestricted dates for every
possible type of media, for anything to do with Dave Winslow at any time.
I found 36 matches, 16 of them repeating identically the aforementioned
quote. None of these made any reference whatsover to Winslow apart from
the quote. The rest were nothing to do with Dave Winslow, the AP reporter.
They concerned Dave Winslow the musician, Dave Winslow the police
officer, Dave Winslow the airforce pilot, Dave Winslow the insurance
spokesman etc. Not a single match for AP reporter Dave Winslow in
any context except his alleged quote. In any kind of media at any time.
I searched over 100 Yahoo matches with the Keywords "Dave Winslow
AP " with the same result. Has Dave Winslow ever filed a radio report?
Has he ever interviewed anyone? Does he exist? I have found no evidence
that he does. If anyone (including Mr Winslow himself) can come foward
with evidence other than that quote, that an AP radio reporter named Dave
Winslow exists, I will willingly retract the statement, but up until then, I am
treating this account as a fabrication. At very best, it is almost certainly
second hand, and in it's present form is too enigmatic to have much meaning.
It definitely does not qualify as a verifiable eyewitness account of a large
jet hitting the Pentagon.

A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an
American Airways 757. "'It added power on its way in,' he said.
'The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a
fireball.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts </gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0%2C1300%2C550486%2C00.html>
." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001
This is quoted accurately from the Guardian,but the Guardian quote
is lifted from an interview Timmerman did with CNN, in which he
stated quite explicitly that the plane did not appear to crash into the
Pentagon. Such a selecetive quote is a misrepresentation of
the Timmerman interview. He said that it crashed on a helipad,
near the Pentagon, and that he didn't think it hit the building. And if
you compare the transcript, with the Guardian quote, you'll see that
although the quote is similar in essence, The Guardian actually changed
the wording slightly. If quotation marks are to be used then the quote
should be repeated verbatim, not tampered with. During this research,
I found this to be a common practice.
Here's the full transcript of Timmerman's interview. CNN Breaking
news Sept 11 13.46

We do also have somebody to talk with us who was an eyewitness to
the actual crash. He was watch from Arlington, Virginia, which is a
suburb. His name is Tim Timmerman.

Mr. Timmerman, are you with us right now?

TIM TIMMERMAN, EYEWITNESS: I sure am.

FRANKEN: You are a pilot. Tell us what you saw.

TIMMERMAN: I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor,
overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a
panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time,
but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest,
and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went
by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it
pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building.

And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear
to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting
the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward,
and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.

FRANKEN: What can you tell us about the plane itself?

TIMMERMAN: It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question.

FRANKEN: You say that it was a Boeing, and you say it was a 757 or 767?

TIMMERMAN: 7-5-7.

FRANKEN: 757, which, of course...

TIMMERMAN: American Airlines.

FRANKEN: American Airlines, one of the new generation of jets.

TIMMERMAN: Right. It was so close to me it was like looking out my
window and looking at a helicopter. It was just right there.

FRANKEN: We were told that it was flying so low that it clipped off
a couple of light poles as it was coming in.

TIMMERMAN: That might have happened behind the apartments
that occluded my view.

And when it reappeared, it was right before impact, and like I said,
it was right before impact, and I saw the airplane just disintegrate
and blow up into a huge ball of flames.

FRANKEN: So there was a fireball that you saw?

TIMMERMAN: Absolutely. And the building shook, and it
was quite a tremendous explosion.

FRANKEN: What did you see after that?

TIMMERMAN: Nothing but the flames. I sat here, and I took a few
pictures out of my window, and I noticed the fire trucks and the
responses was just wonderful. Fire trucks were there quickly.
I saw the area; the building didn't look very damaged initially,
but I do see now, looking out my window, there's quite a chunk
in it.

But I think the blessing here might have been that the airplane
hit before it hit the building, it hit the ground, and a lot of energy
might have gone that way. That's what it appeared like.

FRANKEN: There is, of course -- we heard some discussion about
the fact that it could have been worse had it actually gone a little bit
higher and gone into what is the called the ring, the center ring...

(CROSSTALK)

FRANKEN: This is a five-sided building.

TIMMERMAN: As you know, the rings are A, B, C, D, E. It is just
across the E ring on the outside, and that's why I felt it didn't look
as damaged as it could be. It looked like on the helipad, which is on that side.

FRANKEN: Did you see any people being removed, any injured being
removed, that type of thing?

TIMMERMAN: No, sir. I am up about a quarter a mile -- it may be a
little bit closer -- and at that point, I saw nothing like that.

FRANKEN: Tim Timmerman, thank you very much -- an eyewitness,
Judy, to the crash.

I have some difficulty with the idea that a plane going right past your window
at about 400 mph, could be in any way reminiscent of a helicopter, but I'll
let that pass, because there are more important issues to explore with this
account. If a statement is not truthful, a clue will usually be revealed by
inconsistencies in fine details. In this case the fine details relate to placement -
where the witness was, the flight path, where he saw it, and where he lost it
behind the building, and how he describes his view. And a close analysis of
these factors makes this account impossible to believe. You'll need a map of
Arlington and the surrounding areas to follow this. If you don't have a hard
copy map, I found a number of online maps, which in combination are adequate.
This one
<http://www.realestatemapsmdva.com/virginia/arlington/index.html>
I will refer to as map 1.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/pentagonmap_091301.htm>
(map 2) and
<http://www.holidayinnwashingtondc.com/downtown.html>
(map 3)
<http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/dc.html>
(map 4 ).
http://www.sheratonnationalhotel.com/hotellocation.cfm
(map 5 )

Note: These maps do not state their orientation. I have assumed it to be
due east- west, from right to left. If it is not, this will create innacuracies
in my description of directions. However, this will make no difference to
the analysis, because the importance of any direction stated is purely
in the context of it's relativity to other directions.

First lets work out where Timmerman's apartment is.
Look at map 1 to get a basic overview of the area. Timmerman's apartment
is somewhere around the edge of the residential area which borders the
south western corner of the yellow area which is the Arlington
Cemetary/Pentagon complex. In a moment you'll see how I worked this
out. Maps 3 and 4 are also basic overview maps. On map 4, Timmerman
is somewhere around the junction of 244 with the circular road around the
Arlington cemetary complex. Take a note of where Washington National
Airport is, south and slightly east of the Pentagon.
Now let's zoom in a bit. Go to map 5 and see where 244 (Columbia Pike)
runs behind the southern perimiter of the Navy Annex and then bends to run
the eastern perimiter. Note where 244 meets Southgate Rd. Since this map
has a scale on it, you can work out that this junction is about 600 yards from
the Pentagon west wall if you take a line due east from the junction. Now refer
back to map 1, find this junction by looking for the bend in 244, and this
gives you an overview of how much open space there is in the semi circle
around the Pentagon. Close to a 1000 yards in general. Go to map 2 which
is a closer view of the Pentagon. It doesn't go out to the junction of 244
and Southgate, but it also has a scale which puts the western edge of Washington
Boulevarde about 250 yards from the Pentagon. If you go back to map 5,
you'll find that the two maps disagree a bit in scale. On map 5, I made this
distance about 400 yards. We can't expect pinpoint accuracy with this method,
nor do we need it for this exercise. I suspect from what else I've read in the
eyewitness reports that the distances on map 5 are a little exaggerated, but the
discrepencies will not affect this analysis.If we take the scale of map 2 as being
more accurate, the juction of 244 and Southgate is more like 450 yards
and the clear circle around the Pentagon about 650- 700 in most areas.
According to other eyewitness reports, the eastern edge of Washington
Boulevarde is about 100 yards from the west wall.
Timmerman says his apartment is about 1/4 mile from the Pentagon,
maybe a little closer.About 400 - 450 yards. That doesn't seem possible
from these maps, because it would place him well inside the cemetary.
Looking at maps 1 and 5, it's difficult to place him closer than about 600 yards.
We can forgive him an error of judgement and also take into account probable
innaccuracy of the maps and the innacuracy of measuring the distance on a
computer screen. What it tells us however, is that his apartment must be one
of the very closest to the Pentagon. It must be right at the edge of that circle
of open ground around the Pentagon, the circle which includes the cemetary.
This is supported by this statement.

I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the
Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama.

So regardless of the exact distance that the circle of open ground represents,
we know that Timmerman is very close to the edge of it. Now that we've
worked out his probable distance from the Pentagon, lets work out his direction.
We were given two clues.

And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet
engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came
right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton
Hotel...

and

It was so close to me it was like looking out my window and looking at
a helicopter. It was just right there.

So we know he's close to the airport and close to 395 and close to to
Columbia Pike and the Sheraton Hotel. Go back to map 5 to narrow
down the possibilities. We saw from map 4 that he can't be too close to
the airport, because then he wouldn't have an angle from which it is possible
to see the damaged wall. That's the west wall which faces the cemetary. So
his most likely location is either hard up against the junction of 395 and Army
drive, around Nash or Lynne St, which is still placing him on quite a tight angle
of vision to the west wall, or on the other side of 395, close to the junction
of 27. He says it went "by" the Sheraton Hotel rather than behind it or over
it, suggesting that he's probably to the right of the Sheraton. This is slightly
ambiguos however, and doesn't completely rule out the possiblity that he's
to the left of it, which would be more consistent with the impression that he
has an excellent view of the west wall. If this is the case his only possible
location is in an area roughly bounded by 2nd St, Southgate Rd and
Washington Boulevarde. This is because McPherson St and Patton Drive
form the boundary of the Arlington Cemetary. We can work that out from
this map.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/interactive_map/interactivemap_big.html

This map is a little confusing at first because it's left to right orientation is not
the same as the others. You have to turn the top part of the map
(McPherson Drive) to the left to get the orientation to match with map 5.

What's the flight path? To come right up 395 and over Columbia Pike, it
must have gone right of the Sheraton and passed over the Navy Annex.
(See map5 ) So it either passed right over the top of the Navy Annex and
then turned sharply right to fly almost due east towards the helipad, or
else it started to veer right as it passed the Sheraton, bringing it over the
south-eastern corner of the Annex and from there took a fairly straight line
north-east to the helipad. If it took the first of these options, then it flew to
the collision point across the southern boundary of the cemetary. If it took
the second option, it flew fractionally to the south of the cemetary boundary.
Go back to map 1 to get an overview of what it's flying across here. Open
country. No residential development.
What did Timmerman see? When he first became aware of the plane he
looked back to the south west, down 395 and had a clear enough view of
it to identify it as a AA 757 "no question." Obviously he does have quite
a panorama, because at this point he is looking back to an area with a
substantial amount of high rise development. Even though he is a pilot,
and would therefore recognise the plane quicker than most, he would
still need a view of it for at least a few seconds to make such a positive
identification. So he saw it for at least 2 seconds, probably longer,
before it got to Coumbia Pike. This means he had an unbroken view of
it for at least 400 yards as it flew through a heavily built up area. He could
still see it as it flew past the Sheraton and over Columbia Pike, which
means over the Navy Annex. Then he lost it behind a building until just
before impact. What building ? It had just emerged out of the built up
area and it's next 400-500 yards of flight is across clear ground. All the
maps confirm this. And if you want to see photos of what this stretch of
the flight path looks like go to

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/images/above_scenes/index.htm

where you'll find a gallery of 55 ariel photos of Arlington cemetary. In photo
31, you can see the Pentagon in the background.This one demonstrates that
the clear area extends right to the Pentagon's perimiter. Photos 46, 50 and 51
also provide good perspectives. Photo 55 shows the south-east corner of the
cemetary with an unimpeded view across to the Pentagon. According to
Timmerman's account, the view in this photo would be almost the exact
path of the plane after it flew over Columbia Pike. So there could not
have been any building eastwards of the Navy Annex which could have
obstructed Timmerman's view across the last 400 -500 yards of the alleged
flight path. He only lost it once, and we know could still see it as it was
going over the Annex. And we know that he's talking about an apartment
block, because in response to the suggestion that it may have knocked over
poles on it's way in, he replies

"That might have happened behind the apartments that occluded
my view. "

What apartments? These poles are at the foot of the westen wall of the
Pentagon, a place which we were led to believe that Timmerman could
clearly see from his apartment. He doesn't say exactly where he lost it,
but it was obviously for a substantial time, 2 seconds at least, otherwise
he would not have given it such significance in his description. 2 seconds
is about 400 yards of flight. So he lost it for almost the entire flight after
Columbia Pike when there was nothing in the area to obstruct his view.
This is very difficult to believe, but if it is any way possible, the offending
apartments could only have been within the residential area. Since we know
that he must be very close to the edge of the residential area, any apartment
in front of him which blocked his view would have to be very close to him.
In order to have enough elevation to block his view of the flight path and of
the poles at the foot of the Pentagon it would therefore have to be at least
about the same hight as Timmerman's apartment - about 15 stories. Any
building this tall would have to be 60 - 100 ft wide to have structural integrity.
So Timmerman has a 60 - 100ft wide building very close to him, blocking
his view of the west wall of the Pentagon. Not such a panorama afer all.
And yet he's told us that he can see the helipad and the damaged section
of the wall, which is just to the north of the helipad, and in another part of
the interview, gave detailed descriptions of what he could see in that area,
in terms of response crews.He's also told us that he can see the Sheraton
and an area of Columbia Pike, which we have deduced as being around the
Navy Annex area. He didn't lose it behind the Navy Annex, because he
saw it fly over that area, and anyway he said that it was a block of apartments
which obscured his view.

Is it possible to construct a scenario where Timmerman's line of sight from
his apartment allows him to see the Navy Annex, the helipad, and the
damaged area of the wall, but almost nothing in between, because of
obstruction from a nearby apartment? Lets run through the possible locations.
If he's tucked into the area of Nash and Lynne st, near the Junction of 395
and Army Drive, then if he's looking directly at the helipad, the area where
he lost sight of the plane is at about 11 oclock.For a 60 - 100 ft wide building
to block 30 degrees of his vision, it would have to be between 35 and 60 yards
in front of him. This places his apartment further back from the edge
of the residential area.Remember that he said he was 400- 450 yards away,
so we already stretching this severely, even without setting him back further
into the residential area. Worse still, from this position, he is already at a very
tight angle to be able to see much of the western wall, and what little he can
see would now be squeezed into a very narrow space along the edge of his
sight line. And given that the helipad (which photos show sufferered
miraculously little damage) juts out from the wall, he wouldn't be able to
see past it to see the damaged section. And yet he gives us a detailed
description of the damage. This isn't possible. If we decide to
reduce the width of the obstruction in an attempt to give him more angle
past the helipad to see the area where the damage occured, we solve
one problem but create another. In response to the suggestion that
poles might have been knocked down, he says that may have happened
behind the apartments. Since these poles would be situated on about the
same line of sight as the damaged area of wall, they have to either both
be visible or both obstructed. It does not appear possible to construct
any scenario where Timmerman could have seen what he describes
from this area. And if we move him to the other side of 395 it gets worse.
His angle of vision between the helipad and the Navy Annex becomes even
tighter, making it totally impossible to squeeze in an apartment block which
could have obstructed the flight path, without also obstructing both the
Navy Annex and the collision area. He's almost directly behind the line of
the flight path, which means that if he couldn't see the plane in flight, then
he also couldn't see the crash site.This problem remains wherever we
place him on the west side of 395.
Lets suppose that we somehow solve this problem. We place him east
of 395 and somehow manage to sqeeze in an apartment block which
allows him to see the the collision area past the helipad, but still blocks
out the poles, and allows him to see the Navy Annex but blocks
everything inbetween.He would certainly not have anything like a panorama,
He would have a clear view of the south wall of the Pentagon, but his view
of the west wall, where all the action was, would be on a severe angle, and
his view dominated by the apartment block.

And yet, when he describes losing the plane he simply describes it as
"behind a building". He doesn't say anything to this effect " behind
these apartments right in front of me that block out so much of my view.
I have a sharply angled view of the west wall past the edge of them."
And he would see very little, if anything of the action afterwards - the
fire trucks, the rescue crews. Most, if not all of this would be hidden
behind the apartments. So how can he explain this exchange?

FRANKEN: Did you see any people being removed, any injured
being removed, that type of thing?

TIMMERMAN: No, sir. I am up about a quarter a mile -- it may
be a little bit closer -- and at that point, I saw nothing like that.

He somehow forgot to mention that the reason he couldn't see anything
like that was because the area in front of the crash site was hidden by
an apartment block? If he couldn't see anything like that happening in the
narrow wedge of vision he has along the western wall, he would really
have no idea what might have been happening just out from the wall
behind the apartments that presumably are still occluding his view.

If power poles that might have been knocked down as it came in were
obstructed from his view by apartments, then presumably those apartments
were still there after the crash.
But referring to the damage he confidently says

"I saw the area; the building didn't look very damaged initially,
but I do see now, looking out my window, there's quite a chunk
in it."

"It is just across the E ring on the outside, and that's why I felt it didn't look
as damaged as it could be. It looked like on the helipad, which is on that side."

Nothing to the effect that his view of the damaged
area is so restricted that it's "difficult to tell from this angle."

For the entire interview, Timmerman gives the impression that
he has a magnificent view of everything that's happening. If the offending
apartment block really is there (permanently), it's impossible to believe that
the impression of a clear view was given accidently, just by forgetting to
qualify things. Timmerman is a pilot - a person
with sharp, quick powers of observation and meticulous attention to detail.
He accurately describes the flight path, distances, the type of aircraft, how it
crashed, what he can see of the damage, the response of rescue and fire
crews.He describes which freeway the plane flew along and which buildings
and landmarks he saw it go over or past, but is curiously vague about which
building he lost it behind, when that building must significantly dominate
his view. And through the entire interview he somehow forgets to mention
what a poor view he has of the western wall, and gives completely the
opposite impression.

"I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking
the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama."

"I sat here, and I took a few pictures out of my window, and I noticed
the fire trucks and the responses was just wonderful. Fire trucks were
there quickly. I saw the area; the building didn't look very damaged
initially, but I do see now, looking out my window, there's quite a
chunk in it."

"It is just across the E ring on the outside, and that's why I felt it didn't look
as damaged as it could be. It looked like on the helipad, which is on that side."


" No, sir. I am up about a quarter a mile -- it may be a little bit closer
-- and at that point, I saw nothing like that."

I've never been to Wasington DC. This analysis was deduced from maps.
Lets suppose that my unfamiliarity with the area has caused me to miss a
detail which could not be deduced from the maps. Even if this has happened,
there is still a terrible inconsistency in this account which seems impossible
to resolve. Timmerman says that when the plane reappeared, it was right
before impact. If it hit the ground 30 yards in front of the wall, and he had
70 yards of flight before that, after it reappeared, that gives him less than
0.4 second to pick it up before the crash and about 0.15 second between
the crash and the impact with the wall. His powers of observation would
seem extraordinary in this situation, particularly as he could not have known
exactly where he should be looking to see it as it re-emerged.

"I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the
building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground,
but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and
then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames."

And yet, even this near impossible scenario still gives him 100 yards
of vision between the Pentagon and the obstructing apartments, probably
enough to see the light poles along the eastern edge of Washington Boulevarde.
And given the momentum of the plane, as these were
broken off, they would have been pushed forward towards the wall. And
there is another set of poles closer to the wall, which he could not possibly
have had obscured from his view, otherwise he could not have seen the
crash. Regarding the poles along the edge of Washington Boulevarde,
he is caught between impossibilities. If we shift the obstruction further
away, to make it more credible that he could have seen the crash in such
meticulous detail, there is no way that these poles can have been obscured.
If we shift it closer, his detailed description in such a short time becomes
impossible. Of course, he may not have noticed the poles being clipped
off in the moment, but it's difficult to believe that he hadn't noticed anything
3 hours later, especially as he was specifically asked about them. And he
doesn't say anything to the effect that "All the poles I can see are still standing"
He denies any knowledge, strongly implying that all relevant poles are hidden
from his view. If they are, then he can't have seen the crash.

This is the statement which seals the fate of this account.

"That may have happened behind the apartments that occluded
my view"

Note the use of the past tense. They occluded my view but they don't
anymore.
The complex ananysis has been done. Now lets look at it very simply and
succinctly. From his apartment, Timmerman looks north east, possibly close
to due east to the helipad. According to most of the interview, he has a clear
view of the west wall. The plane allegedly flew north east or possibly almost
due east towards the helipad from an area very close to Timmerman's apartment.
So what was in the background of Timmerman's sight as the plane flew from
the Navy Annex to the helipad? The west wall of the pentagon of course.
Apparently not. A block of apartments which isn't normally there miraculously
sprang up and occluded his view, but had disappeared again by the time of
the interview.

This account is impossible to believe.

On Sept 12, the Press went into a frenzy with Timmerman's juicy quote
about the explosion.
But while they were quite happy to use his description of the crash, they
brushed aside his modest assessment of the damage, for more exciting
descriptions, cleverly juxtaposing these with his quote to make it look like
Timmerman had described cataclysmic damage to the building.
For example, the St Petersburg Times on Sept 12. http://www.sptimes.com/News/091201/Worldandnation/Workers_flee_in_panic.shtml

WASHINGTON -- Tim Timmerman was looking out a window of
his 16th-floor apartment in Virginia when he saw the plane heading
for the Pentagon.
"I saw the nose break up. I saw the wings fly forward," Timmerman
said. "And then the conflagration just engulfed everything in flames.
It was horrible."
The jetliner burst through the Pentagon's stone exterior and exploded,
ripping a gaping hole that extended at least 200 feet wide into the squat,
five-sided building, authorities said.
The plane hit the southwest wall that faces Arlington National
Cemetery. Nearby is the building's helicopter landing area.

And also on sept 12 The Rutland Herald
http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/News/Story/33484.html
An eyewitness said the plane¡¯s pilot appeared to add power to the
engines as it prepared to plow into the west side of the Pentagon at
9:40 a.m. EDT.
¡°I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward,¡± said Tim
Timmerman, who watched the crash from his 16th-floor apartment
building in suburban Virginia that overlooks the Pentagon. ¡°And
then the conflagration just engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.¡±

But there is more to this than just the uncritical sensationalising of
Timmerman's impossible account. Later in the same article it was reported.

The jetliner burst through the Pentagon¡¯s stone exterior and exploded,
ripping a gaping hole that extended at least 200 feet wide into the squat,
five-sided building, authorities said.

Word for word the same as the St Petersburg Times, complete with the
telltale "authorities said" What this tells us, is that in some cases the press
was not writing it's own accounts. U.S. authorities were writing the news for
them, and the press were printing it verbatim. Were authorities also
producing the witnesses?

The same pre-manufactured spin was repeated in combination with the
Timmerman quote at Starnet.com
http://www.azstarnet.com/attack/3-1.html
at the same time as showing a photo of the hole which isn't anywhere near
200 ft wide. Have a look at the photo. If the black van just in front of the hole
is 20ft long, then the hole is 50 - 80 ft wide.

It is interesting to note that all three of these reports chose the same
Timmerman quote in partnership with what appears to be a pre-set script
from authorities. And a similar pairing was also made by the SF Gate on
Sept 12

<http://www.sfgate.com/today/0912_chron_main.shtml>
although this chose to paraphrase Timmerman, rather quote him directly.
Timmerman was only interviewed once and his dramatic description of the
crash was quickly co-opted into the official mythology.

Like the Mike Walter report, this demonstrates the absolute importance
of being able to interview a witness extensively, before giving too much
weight to their account.

"Father Stephen McGraw was driving to a graveside service at Arlington
National Cemetery the morning of Sept. 11, when he mistakenly took the
Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, putting him in a position to
witness American Airlines Flight 77 crash into the Pentagon. 'I was in
the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at
all until the plane was just right above our cars.' McGraw estimates
that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the
left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon. 'The
plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us, injuring
a taxi driver, whose taxi was just a few feet away from my car. I saw
it crash into the building,' he said. 'My only memories really were that
it looked like a plane coming in for a landing. I mean in the sense that
it was controlled and sort of straight. That was my impression,' he said.
'There was an explosion and a loud noise and I felt the impact. I remember
seeing a fireball come out of two windows (of the Pentagon). I saw an
explosion of fire billowing through those two windows.'"
- "Pentagon Crash Eyewitness Comforted Victims </gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Pentagon%5Fcrash%5Feyewitness%5Fcomforted%5Fvictims.html>." MDW News Service, 28 Sep 2001

There's a big problem with this account. McGraw says that the plane
passed directly over his car at power pole hight but that he didn't hear
anything until it was directly above.Totally impossible if it was a 757. He
says he had the window closed, which is like wearing a t-shirt to protect
against a machine gun. If a 757 was passing 20 ft over your car, you
would be deafened by it before you saw it. This account must be subject
to serious questioning to have any chance of being considered, because
in this form, it is totally impossible to believe that McGraw saw a 757.
So either the whole account is fiction, or embellished beyond credibility,
or what Mcgraw saw was actually a small plane or a cruise missile, which
might make it credible in terms of the noise factor. Note that the reference
to American airlines F77 was inserted by commentary, not directly attributed
to Mcgraw. So I checked the reference to see if there were any clues as to
what kind of plane McGraw thinks he saw.
The reference turned out to be US Army - The Military district of
Washington site.The article containing McGraw's quote was written by
Paul Haring (Staff photographer for the Fort Myer Military Community's
Pentagram newspaper) for the MDW News Service (That's Military District
of Washington) and not posted till Sept 28.
In this article McGraw is also quoted as saying (and in Haring's article this
quote directly follows the end of the section quoted above, so he's just been
talking about the explosion,and impact)

"I remember hearing a collective gasp or scream from one of the
other cars near me.Almost a collective gasp it seemed."

Let me think now... He was in a car with the windows closed, which
explains why he was totally oblivious to the noise of a 757 approaching
his car at a hight of about 20 ft, but as it slammed into the wall, precipitating
an explosion and fireball, he was able to hear a collective gasp from a
nearby car. Hmm...or did they all wait until the noise had died down,
and then gasp in unison at a volume louder than a 757?
Media searches for Father John Mcgraw returned no matches. The
only matches on Yahoo were for references to Haring's article, which
is posted on behalf of the US army - an organization not noted for
critically questioning official stories.
It is beyond question that McGraw cannot possibly be giving a
truthful, accurate account of F77 hitting the Pentagon. So either the
report is fiction, or else Mcgraw witnessed proof that whatever hit
the wall was not F77. The unlikely story about hearing the collective
gasp tells me that this account should be discarded, especially as it does
not contain any redeeming qualities to offset it's retrospective nature.

"'I glanced up just at the point where the plane was going into the
building,' said Carla Thompson, who works in an Arlington, Va.,
office building about 1,000 yards from the crash. 'I saw an indentation
in the building and then it was just blown-up up-red, everything red,
' she said. 'Everybody was just starting to go crazy. I was petrified.'"
- "Terrorists Attack New York, Pentagon </gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la%2D091201main.story>
" Los Angeles Times, 12 Sep 2001

If she glanced up just at the point of collision, then she can't have seen the
object clearly enough to identify it. She say's "the plane", which is fair
enough, because you wouldn't expect anyone in this situation to think that
it was anything else. She can't possibly have actually seen a plane, but
understandably, in the light of everything else that was being said, included
this assumption in her quote. But was it a light plane, a passenger jet, a
military jet, a helicopter or a cruise missile?
It obviously wouldn't cross the mind of someone in that situation. So
what Thompson claims to have seen was an indentation and an explosion.
It's not in dispute that they occurred, but Thompson's quote is irrelevant
to the question of what caused the explosion. She does not say words
to the effect that she saw a large passenger jet fly towards the Pentagon
and collide with the wall.
I did an extensive search to see if Thompson made any other reports,
but the LA times quote was the only reference to her anywhere.

The final witness of the 19 on the Urban legends site.

"I witnessed the jet hit the Pentagon on September 11. From my
office on the 19th floor of the USA TODAY building in Arlington,
Va., I have a view of Arlington Cemetery, Crystal City, the Pentagon,
National Airport and the Potomac River. ... Shortly after watching
the second tragedy, I heard jet engines pass our building, which, being
so close to the airport is very common. But I thought the airport was
closed. I figured it was a plane coming in for landing. A few moments
later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye.
it didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe
the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to
happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked
slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into
the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball.
Then black smoke. Then white smoke."
- Steve Anderson </gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.jmu.edu/alumni/tragedy%5Fresponse/read%5Fmessages.html>, Director of Communications,
USA Today

Yet another "USA today" worker. I checked the reference on this one and
immediately discounted It. it's not even a media report. It's an account from
Anderson which is posted on a pro-government style website, simply entitled
"Sept 11." It's not a site dedicated to research or analysis, and questioning
of the official story would definitely not be welcome there. The posting date
was Oct 2. Another "USA today" witness not considered worthy of
interview by his own network (or any other). Anderson's story is not
published anywhere else. There are not even any second hand references
to him as being a witness. We have only this account, posted on a less
than critical medium, 3 weeks after the event. Even if this account is
truthful in it's intention, there is no doubt that if Anderson wasn't certain
what the object was at the time of sighting, he would have convinced
himself by Oct 2 that it must have been F77. This is why accounts should
really be published as soon as possible after the event, to have any credibility,
before people start to conciously or unconciously change their story in line with
what it is that they're supposed to have seen, and before the media begins to
develop preconceptions about what people could or could not have seen.
Anderson's account doesn't come anywhere near meeting verifiable standards.
Nevertheless, I can't resist pointing out the obvious impossibility in this account
even if it was admissible.I don't know exactly where the "USA today" office is,
but lets say it's 1000 yards from the Pentagon, like Carla Thompson's office.
An aircraft flying at 400 mph, will cover that distance in about 5 seconds.
Anderson said that he heard it pass over the building and initially thought
nothing of it.
So in the next 5 seconds he had time to: Think that the noise of the
unseen aircraft was a plane coming in for a landing : weigh this up
against his thought that the airport was closed : look down at his desk
for a few moments: have the plane catch his eye: look up and catch full
sight of it: have a dumbstruck moment where nothing registered: and stil
l have enough time left to meticulously observe that "the plane flew at
treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the
ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon." Try acting
this out and see if you have enough time left at the end to make such a
detailed observation. And if the wing dragged along the ground for 30
yards, he would have seen that for about 0.15 of a second before the
explosion.

What appeared at first reading to be 19 eyewitness accounts actually
turned to out to be none.Thompson's glimpse of what happened was
so fleeting that it would fit with almost any scenario.Timmerman asked us
to believe in apartment blocks that come and go.The Winslow report is
almost certainly a fabrication, is too enigmatic anyway, and at very best is
almost certainly 2nd hand. Sucherman didn't claim to see a collision, or
describe the plane.The Walter reports are too contradictory, and in any case,
mostly say that he didn't see the collison. The anonymous testimony of "KM"
mentions only a "plane" which could refer to any type of plane, or a cruise missile
So that testimony wouldn't contribute anything, even if it was admissible.
McGraw has all kinds of problems, both with credibilty and verification,
Anderson's is retrospective and impossible to take seriously anyway, and
Kizildrgri described nothing except a big boom. The other 10 didn't even
make it to a detailed anaysis, because they didn't even give the superficial
impression of having witnessed the collision.

What has emerged so far is a disturbing pattern of manipulative
reporting and fabrication.
What has also emerged is that a suspiciously high number of these
dubious witnesses just happen to be media figures.

I now searched for other reports which had a chance of meeting the
required standards of verification and credibility. Perhaps the "urban
legends" site simply chose an unfortunate selection of quotes, and that
there is more conclusive evidence to be found elsewhere.

This is what I could find.

The Boston Globe Sept 12
Rodney Washington, a systems engineer for a Pentagon contractor,
was stuck in stand-still traffic a few hundred yards from the Pentagon
when the American Airlines jet roared overhead from the southwest.

"It was extremely loud, as you can imagine, a plane that size, it
was deafening," Washington said.

The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said,
knocking over light poles before hitting the ground on a helicopter
pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it.

It "landed there and the momentum took it into the Pentagon,"
Washington said. "There was a very, very brief delay and then it exploded."

There are some obvious signs for a report which is fabricated or embellished
beyond credibility, and this one has painted some of them in very big letters.
First, the plane. It hits the ground, but miraculously does not break up,
explode, flip over or cartwheel, but simply continues, into the wall, intact
enough to smash it's way through the wall, and then, apparently still intact
enough to see, waits a respectful moment before spontaneously exploding.
How long does it wait? 1 second? So, if it was travelling at the conservative
speed of 300mph, after it hit the ground and it landed 30 yards from the wall,
then it took approximately 0.2 of a second to reach the wall. So it endured 2
collisions in 0.2 seconds, but waited another full second to suddenly explode
after staying intact from two devestating impacts. Perhaps it exploded in a
more realistic time frame, for example 10 milliseconds after smashing through
the wall? That's more like it, except I'd like to know how the witness was
able to pick a 10 millisecond delay from "instantaneous". The entire experience,
from the time the plane hit the ground would have lasted 0.21 of a second.
Could the witness have even distinguished this from an impression that it simply
flew into the wall? Therin lies the insoluble problem of this account. If it waited
long enough before exploding, for the human eye to be able to pick up the
delay, it postulates an impossible end to an impossible crash scenario. And if it
exploded in a believable time frame - say a few milliseconds added on to a
total time of about 0.2 of a second - then how could the witness have
distinguished this from being instantaneous? The whole event would have
appeared instantaneous but is described in detailed sequence. "Oh what a
tangled web we weave..."
Now, to the question of the conditions under which the witness would have
been making this razor sharp observation. If it hit the ground, it would of
course have thrown up a huge cloud of dirt.(Unless it landed on very hard
ground, in which case we ask why it didn't beak up on impact) 0.2 of a
second later, the scene would have been further complicated by the collapsing
rubble as it smashed it's way through the wall. So even if this witness does
have the miraculous observational powers to be able to pick a sequence of
events broken down into milliseconds, all he would have seen was a cloud
of flying dirt and collapsing rubble with the briefest of a blurred glimpse of the
plane, before the explosion. But Eagle-Eye-Washington was still able to
pick out where it landed, how the momentum carried it into the building
and best of all, amongst the falling rubble and flying dirt, that after it smashed
through the wall, there was "a very,very brief delay " before it exploded.

Newsday (New York NY) Sept 11
One eyewitness, State Department employee Ken Ford, said he watched
from the 15th floor of the State Department Annex, just across the
Potomac River from the Pentagon."We were watching the airport,
through the [binoculars]," Ford said, referring to Reagan National
Airport, a short distance away. "The plane was a two-engine turbo prop
that flew up the river from National. Then it turned back toward the
Pentagon. We thought it had been waved off and then it hit the building."

It's not clear why the word "binoculars" is in brackets. I couldn't find anything
else from Ford. He's vague about the manner in which it collided with the
building, which probably increases the credibility of his account. In real life,
most people who witness shocking, unexpected events which happen very
quickly, don't take in a lot of fine detail. It's when people report meticulously
detailed observations in these situations that suspicions of fabrication or
embellishment are aroused. If he was watching from across the river (east)
then he couldn't have directly seen an impact on the western wall, although
it's feasible that he could have seen it's approach until milliseconds before
impact, and then seen some of the explosion rising above the buiding.
This one (just) meets accepted standards, but directly contradicts the
official story anyway. We need more information about how and when it
was sourced.

Agence France Presse Sept 11

"I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and
low." said Army captain Lincoln Liebner. "My first thought was,
I've never seen one flying at that hight",he said. "Before it hit,I
realized what was happening".

At first glance, this seems like a fairly straightforward eyewitness quote
that Captain Liebner really is claiming first hand to have clearly seen an
American Airlines jet "hit". (Presumably the Pentagon)
Unfortunately, more detailed research exposed it as a fabrication. Here's
how. A search turned up 14 such matches for Agence France in
combination with Leibner, many of them on Sept 11, and some on Sept
12. They are all, almost exactly the same story, but there are minor variations,
as the report was modified slightly over the 14 different airings given to
the story over the two days.Unfortunately, exact times are not given for
the reports, but we know which of the 14 matches was the earliest,
because the search always lists the results by the most recent document first.
All of the Sept 12 versions of this report gave Liebner's quote, as above.
So did the later reports of Sept 11. But the story in the first three reports
was quite different, as far as Leibner is concerned. Here's the first report.

At a media briefing, Pentagon spokeswoman Torie Clark told the
story of Capt. Lincoln Liebner, who was outside the Pentagon when
the blast took place. He rushed into the building to help. His hands
were burned, and after he was taken away to a hospital for treatment,
he returned later in the day to do more.

No quote from Leibner, and not even a second hand reference to any
kind of plane, let alone an "American airlines passenger jet." In fact the
incident is described as a "blast".

Here's the second report.

Army Captain Lincoln Liebner, who witnessed the blast, entered the
damaged building and pulled colleagues from the fire, according to
Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke. His hands badly burnt by the
flames, Liebner refused to leave the scene and seek treatment.

"They forced him to go to the hospital," Clarke said. "He came back
and he's in the building and he is working."

The third report

Pentagon spokeswoman Torie Clark related the example of Army
Capt. Lincoln Liebner who saw the aircraft hit and rushed into the
burning building to help. He later was taken to a nearby hospital
to have his hands treated for burns, but then returned to the
Pentagon, Clark said.

Still no direct quote from Leibener but what he's alleged to have
witnessed has suddenly changed from a "blast" to "saw the aircraft hit."

And in the fourth report, it becames the direct quote from Leibner,
and remains so for the other 10 reports.The reference to Clarke disappears.
Did the media get an opportunity to interview Leibner, between the third
and fourth reports? There's no evidence for this.

"He came back and he's in the building and he is working." Does
this sound like an invitation to interview him?

So I found the original transcript of Clarke's media briefing.

Federal news Service Sept 11 2001.
And I'd just like to say one more thing. The response from the
military has been phenomenal. The response from the search
and rescue people has been incredible, and the people in the
community. And I'll just give you one example. There is a young man,
Captain Lincoln Liebner --

Q Spell it.

MS. CLARKE: -- L-i-e-b-n-e-r -- who was on the west side of the
building when it was hit. He saw what happened. He immediately
went in to try to help some of the injured, and helped pull them
out. His hands were burned. He went to the hospital to be taken
care of. They forced him to go to the hospital. He came back and
he's in the building and he is working. And that's just one --

Q Army?

MS. CLARKE: Army.

Q That is just one example of the kind of response we've seen
to this tragedy. And with that, I'd like to turn it over --

Q Torie, just -- excuse me.

There was no further reference to Leibner in the media briefing. So
the overwhelming evidence is that no such direct account ever came
from Leibner. He may or may not have said such a thing to someone
in the department, he may or may not exist. And notice that Clarke made
no mention of either a "blast" or an aircraft, using the ambiguous
word "hit". And she simply describes Leibner as having seen "what happened."
The first two media reports wrote in a reference to a "blast" with no
indication where this came from.
This strongly indicates that at the time of the first two reports, the
general word that was going around was that it had been a bomb.
Suddenly, this was corrected to be a plane, and just to re-inforce the
point, a quote and a witness was invented. So the second hand story
of the man who had witnessed the "blast", something which implies
contradiction of the official story, became mythologised as the man
who's eyewitness account corroborates the official story.
Not only were the Leibner references twisted, but so were Clarke's.
Notice that in the media briefing, Clarke was ambiguous about what
the incident actually was. Her only two references were "hit", which
could mean almost anything and "what happened." As if Clarke herself
was not yet aware of what the official story was concerning the incident.
Agence France twice paraphrased her as referring to a "blast", a word
she never used. In the third report this was sharply corrected, in that Clarke
was said to claimed that Leibner "saw the aircraft hit ", also a clear
misrepresentation of what went on at the breifing, but a very decisive
shift in direction. The fact that in the fourth report, the almost certainly
fabricated Leibner account then completely replaced any reference to
the original briefing strongly indicates that Agence France went into
damage control mode to make sure that the first two reports were
completely buried by the strongest possible confirmation that could be
manufactured that it had been an American Airlines jet.

The Daily Record Sept 12
Record reporter Anna Adams was in Washington yesterday when
the plane hit the Pentagon.

She said: "Nothing prepared me for what I saw this morning.

"As I took a walk through American history, in the seat of government
of the most powerful nation on earth, the vulnerability of the nation
was laid before my astonished eyes.

"I was just five blocks away as Armageddon came to America.

"A passenger jet screamed into the Pentagon and was followed by
a ball of fire which erupted skywards. A thick pall of smoke quickly
covered the area.

"The ear-splitting explosions ripped through the area, the smell
of burning filled the air, panic spread throughout the streets.

"People ran in all directions - they didn't know where or why.

"I was among them - out of breath and out of my mind - I walked
in circles.

"At first, no one knew or could believe what they had actually seen,
what had happened.

"We thought we did but it was impossible to take in.

"Although I was only a few hundred yards away, I had to return
to my nearby hotel and turn on the TV in my room to find out the enormity of the calamity.

"Then I went back on the streets. The mayhem was growing by
the minute.

She was five blocks away. She could not have seen the impact directly,
unless she was in a significantly elevated area. Perhaps she was, but she
doesn't say this. Did she actually see a passenger jet hit the Pentagon?
On close reading she doesn't say anything about seeing anything except
general mayhem and panic.The description of the plane hitting the Pentagon
is certainly not an eyewitness account, but a rather poetically written summary
of the event which Adams assumes to have taken place.

And she admits that she didn't even go to the scene, to check anything directly.

"Although I was only a few hundred yards away, I had to return to my
nearby hotel and turn on the TV in my room to find out the enormity
of the calamity."

Why? Were reporters barred from getting close enough to see what
was really happening? If so, why? If she could only find out "the enormity
of the calamity" by watching TV, then it's certain that she did not witness
with her own eyes, a passenger jet fly into the wall of the building.

An exhaustive search revealed no other matches for Anna Adams.

The Sydney Morning Herald Sept 12 reported that

A woman eyewitness told CNN of the plane crashing into the
Pentagon: "A commercial plane came in. It was coming too fast,
too low and then I saw the fire that came up after that.''

So where did the SMH pick this quote up from? Directly from CNN?
It doesn't seem so. It's lifted directly from a story by the press association
dated Sept 11. How directly? This is the press association report.

A woman eyewitness told CNN of the plane crashing into the Pentagon:
"A commercial plane came in. It was coming too fast, too low
and then I saw the fire that came up after that.''

This was also picked up word for word on Sept 12 by the Grimsby Evening
Telegraph. I wonder if they copied it from SMH ? The appropriately named
"Liverpool echo" also published the anonymous quote on Sept 12, but
dropped the reference to CNN.

I couldn't find a transcript for it, but I did find the CNN audio at
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/day.video.09.html

The quote is accurate in essence, although the wording has been changed.
But she didn't say anything about seeing a plane crash into the pentagon.
She says saw a saw a commercial plane (Size and type unspecified)
coming in too fast and too low - and then the fire.
Check the audio for yourself.

St Louis Post- Dispatch Sept 13. quoted Mike Dobbs as saying

"We were looking out the window, and we saw a plane coming toward
us, for about 10 seconds," he said. "It was like watching a train wreck.
I was mesmerized. It took me a couple of seconds to understand what
we were seeing, and to process it.

"At first I thought it was trying to crash land, but it was coming in
so deliberately, so level, that I realized this is probably part of what
had happened in New York -- part of a coordinated attack.

"It hit, but by that time we had started running. Everyone said
there was a deafening explosion, but with the adrenaline, we
didn't hear it."

It's not clear whether the St Louis Post- Dispatch conducted it's own
interview with Dobbs, or whether it copied and embellished it from
"The Plain Dealer" which quoted Dobbs, thus on Sept 12.

"I saw it come right over the Navy annex at a slow angle,"
he told Scripps Howard News Service. "It seemed to be almost
coming in slow motion. I didn't actually feel it hit, but I saw it, and
then we all started running."

The quotes are different enough that it's possible that it could be the same
man relating the same experience in two different interviews. Except that
my search showed that Dobbs did not say what the "The "Plain Dealer"
attributed to him. To the "Plain Dealers" credit, it has at least told us where
it sourced and embellished the quote from. So here is how Mike Dobbs
was actually quoted by the Scripps Howard news service, on Sept 11.

"It seemed to be almost coming in in slow motion," he said later.
"I didn't actually feel it hit, but I saw it and then we all started running.
They evacuated everybody around us."

This is certainly not a clear description of seeing a large passenger jet actually
hit the Pentagon. But, in the case of the "Plain Dealer" it is a clear description
of the media policy of never letting accuracy get in the way of a juicy quote.

The missing peice of information here, is whether the St Louis Post -Dispatch
conducted a fresh interview with Dobbs for Sept 13, or whether it further
embellished the Plain Dealer embellishment. Either way, by Sept 13 the Dobbs
story had grown considerably from it's humble beginnings on Sept 11. It's
understandable that if Dobbs did give a fresh interview, that he may have been
more coherent on Sept 12 than he was on Sept 11. (presumably he would have
had to have given the St Louis interview, if it took place, on Sept 12) The Sept
11 quote tells us almost nothing. The Sept 13 quote is a little more explicit.
It at least mentions a plane, but gives no other clues. If the Sept 13 quote is
genuine, a closer examination shows that it only further confuses the question.
What kind of plane was it? Was it actually the plane that Dobbs saw, that
caused the explosion, or did it veer away at the last moment and something
else cause the explosion? The Sept 13 quote says that he was running away
by the time it hit, so he certainly couldn't have seen anything that might answer
this question. Perhaps common sense tells us that it must have been. The
problem is that he also says that he didn't hear the explosion.This is puzzling
because he also mentions nothing about feeling it. If he didn't see it, didn't
hear it and didn't feel it, how does he know that it hit ? And in combination
with the Sept 11 report he completes the trifecta by specifically stating that
he didn't feel it either. In The Sept 11 report, he says he saw it, and then started
running, but it's not clear whether this means that he didn't start running until
after it hit, or whether he started running after he saw it coming towards the
building. This is very confusing, which is not to impugn Dobbs. It's easy to
sympathise with the difficulty of being clear about such an experience, but
that doesn't change the fact that this is not an eyewitness report of a large
jet hitting the pentagon. A crash of an unspecified kind of plane, that the
witness didn't feel, didn't hear, and (perhaps) didn't see.

No other matches were found for Mike Dobbs.

The Express Sept 12
Sarah Newsome saw the plane crash into the Pentagon as she was
on her way to work.

"I couldn't believe my eyes - this jet appeared to be heading straight
for the building.

"As it headed towards it the plane began to accelerate and I was
thinking 'This can't really be happening - I can't be seeing this'.

"It plunged into the side in a ball of orange and yellow flame and
there was a massive explosion and the sound of crumbling brick and metal.

For this report, we do at least have the names of the writers, but the quote
is unsourced, in the sense of who interviewed Newsome and when and
where, and is not repeated by any other media. There are no other reports
of any kind that refer to Sarah Newsome as a witness. It (just) meets
acceptable standards of verification and clarity to warrant further investigation.
Note that while she explicitly says that a jet hit the side of the Pentagon, she
does not say whether it was large or small, civillian or military, and does not
say how long she had to identify it. I have a question about how somebody
can tell that a plane has accelerated. If it's traveliing at 400 mph, and you see
it travel 1/2 mile, and it accelerates to 500 mph in the last 250 yards, then
the witness will see it travel at 400mph for about 3 seconds, increasing to
500mph over the last second. Is this discernable? Probably not, but there
is a good explanation as to why a witness might truthfully describe a genuine
impression of seeing a plane accelerating. If the witness has seen it
approaching for a considerable distance, then the changing perspective might
make it appear to be travelling faster as it came closer. A witness who
reports an acceleration in this context is likely to be telling the truth. But
a witness who sees it come unexpectedy out of nowhere for only a few
hundred yards of viewing (less than 2 seconds) and claims that it accelerated
in the last 100 yards before impact is likely to be either embellishing or
fabricating. Since Newsome doesn't mention how long she saw it for,
there is no indication either way.
This certainly qualifies as an eyewitness account, although the strength of
the verification leaves much to be desired. It does not provide any evidence
for F77 hitting the Pentagon. She could just as easily have been describing
a 757, a DC10, an F16 or a cruise missile.

Chistopher Munsey wrote this first hand account of what he claims to
have personally witnessed. The Navy Times Sept 11.
http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-467181.php

A silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly
over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon, just
hundreds of yards away...
The plane, with red and blue markings, hurtled by and within moments
exploded in a ground-shaking ¡°whoomp,¡± as it appeared to hit the side
of the Pentagon.

Does this have the style of an account being written by an eyewitness? I
don't think so. It's too poetic and detatched. This posting date of this is
acceptably early, although we don't know the time of posting. In this case,
that's an important factor, because bearing in mind that it's a military
publication, it's relevant to ask how well established the official story
was by the time he wrote it. The lesson of the Leibner account is that
such questions are legitimate. So did Munsey really see this, or is he
simply writing the military spin? We can't know for sure, but the fact
that no other matches turned up for Munsey as a witness does not help
his cause. What also doesn't help is an article at

http://www.multipull.com/twacasefile/may.html

It concerns the issue of TWA 800, another plane disaster which has
aroused some highly controversial suspicions of government and military
evil against it's own citizens. Not having researched TWA 800, I
won't offer an opinion, but simply observe that there are allegations of
govt. wrongdoing in relation to it.
The article, highly technical in nature,and very even and factual in it's tone
accuses Munsey of writing misleading spin (not it's actual words) in an
article he wrote in July 1996, in relation to the evidence surrounding TWA
800. Unfortunately it does not cite an author's name.

It's from the website of TWA 800 case files, which introduces itself thus
at it's homepage http://www.multipull.com/twacasefile/bf.html

TWA 800 Case Files came into existence in January, 1997. Its
intention then was and now is to critically examine the quality of
information made available to the public concerning TWA Flight
800, and to serve as a collection and access point for media artifacts
of the disaster.
TWA 800 Case Files is not the representative of a particular organization.
Articles represent the point of view of their authors alone, and are
presented in an attempt to increase the resolution of what is and what
is not factually known about TWA Flight 800.

And another article by Munsey at

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/2001/Feb/15/215localnews16.html

puts the navy's case on yet another contentious military issue, the collsion
between the US submarine and the the Japanese Boat, which resulted in
the deaths of Japanese civilians.Given that he writes for the Navy times,
it's not suspicious in itself that Musey should be writing on these issues,
and hardly surprising that he should be putting the official point of view,
but it is a little much to swallow that he just happens to be the only person
we can find who clearly and unambiguosly saw an American Airlines passenger
jet in full flight, and then saw it crash into the side of the building, especially
considering the romantic, detatched style of the account. If other independent
witnesses eventuate which strongly corroborate Munsey, then this may need
to be reviewed, but for now, caution should be exercised about the credibility
of this account. I do also have a big problem with the idea that a 757, just a
few hundred yards away would be described as "gliding almost noiselessly"
as it" hurtled by".

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/11_APdc.html
I saw a big jet flying close to the building coming at full speed. There
was a big noise when it hit the building,'' said Oscar Martinez, who
witnessed the attack.

This is from Ron Fournier of the AP, in the the same article as the infamous
Dave Winslow account. Since I found no other references to Martinez's
alleged account, and extensive searches turned up no verification, or any
other reference to Martinez, I'm not to prepared to consider a completely
uncorroborated account from an article which has already so spectacularly
impugned it's own credibility.

http://www.dcmilitary.com/marines/hendersonhall/6_39/local_news/10797-1.html

Defense Protective Service officers were the first on the scene of the
terrorist attack. One, Mark Bright, actually saw the plane hit the
building. He had been manning the guard booth at the Mall Entrance
to the building.
"I saw the plane at the Navy Annex area," he said. "I knew it was going
to strike the building because it was very, very low -- at the height of the
street lights. It knocked a couple down." The plane would have been
seconds from impact -- the annex is only a few hundred yards from the
Pentagon.
He said he heard the plane "power-up" just before it struck the
Pentagon. "As soon as it struck the building I just called in an
attack, because I knew it couldn't be accidental," Bright said. He
jumped into his police cruiser and headed to the area.

According to calculations deduced from maps, relating to the Timmerman
account, the Navy Annex is about 400 -500 yards from the pentagon. I'm
well aware that the method of this calculation was crude but it gives us a
general idea. The description here indicates that it may be a closer. This
article agees that the plane was only seconds from impact. If we assume
500 yards, then it was about 2 1/2 seconds away. So would this really
have been discernable?

He said he heard the plane "power-up" just before it struck the Pentagon.

We can only assume that he had a maximum of 1 second to pick the
difference in the sound, before this was erased by the sound of the explosion,
and the visual shock. I concede that as a military officer, who is always
working near the sound of planes, that he would have a better chance
of noticing these things than the average person. But I still have a big
question mark over whether such a precise dissection really would
have been possible, in the context of a total experince which lasted 2 1/2
seconds maximum, followed by such a shocking and dramatic aftermath.
It doesn't help that the account was posted on Sept 24 or 28, depending
on which date you believe on the page.Too late to have credibility unless
other redeeming features emerge.It hasn't demonstrated any and it just
happens to be from a military publication. The article is entitled
"The Pentagon's first heroes in a day of heroes."
and opens with this.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Sept. 24, 2001) -- What sort of person
hears an explosion -- and runs toward it?
Ask the people alive today because some Defense Protective Service
officers did exactly that after the hijacked jetliner hit the Pentagon
Sept. 11.

This is not to deny that many people acted heroically during this event.
But it's clear that the focus of this article is to not present objective, critical
analysis of what happened, but to present patriotic spin. Combined with
the late posting, it doesn't meet verifiable standards to the degree which
justifies uncritical acceptance of the doubtful statement above.Anyway, it
gives no indication of what sort of plane it was.


This is the last account I found that offered any hope of a clear witness

¡°The plane approached from my left and struck the building in
front of me to my right. It was a large American Airlines jetliner
with turbine engines on the wings.¡±
<http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0203/S00134.htm>
This doesn't come from a major mainstream media outlet but from a
website named Scoop.The quote is attributed to Steve Riskus who
also supplied some photos which he said were taken immediately after
the crash. At it's homepage <http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/about/>
Scoop describes itself thus.

Scoop is a Wellington based Internet news agency accredited
to the New Zealand Parliament Press Gallery. (A Yahoo search
confirmed this as correct) It specialises in providing news and
commentary **raw and fast** and is made up largely of what
Scoop likes to call "disintermediated" news - that is news without
a spin put on it by a journalist.

What I am interested in here is how the quote was sourced. Scoop
is based in New Zealand, so the witness Steve Riskus has obviously
submitted his information by email. Or did he? The page which posts
his account quote goes on to say.

Asked if he finds the controversy over the crash annoying Steve
replied, ¡°sure.... I do find the controversy annoying... especially
when people ask me questions when they have no intention of
changing there opinion that no plane crashed... but alas... there
is no controversy for me.¡±

This takes on the appearance of some kind of interview. But Scoop
does not tell us whether this exchange took place by email or voice.
It also doesn't ask any important questions. Exactly where did the
plane come in, with reference to what's in the photos, and where he
was at the time of the impact? This is important because the Riskus
account is dated March 19 2002 - way too late to be worth anything
at all, if it were not for the fact that he also provided photos.
So I went searching for other references to Riskus to see if there was
anything else which might better authenticate his account. I found nothing
except the same account with minor variations and the photos posted on
other web sites. He claims that the photos were taken immediately after
the crash On one site he says less than a minute and on another site he says
"seconds".
The photos are therefore the key to determining whether this highly
restrospective account can provide any evidence that a large passenger
jet crashed into the Pentagon. Lets have a look at them.

It's difficult to say whether there is a traffic jam here. It looks to me to
be consistent with a scenario of light traffic,with the small amount of
congestion near the Pentagon being caused by people having stopped and
got out to look. But we don't see a large police presence there to try to
sort out the potential chaos. This supports the claim by Riskus that the
photos are taken fairly soon after the incident. But his descriptions of one
minute and "seconds" may be exaggerations, because we can see that a
police car has already had time to find a way around the barriers and park
off the road and the officer is out and appears to be walking towards the
fire. So it look's as if it is soon after the incident and perhaps the first photo
may have been taken within a minute, but it doesn't look like they were
taken in rapid succession.
I wasn't able to make a confident assessment of whether there's a jam,
or whether it's just that people have stopped to get out and have a look.
That would appear to be irrelevant now since all of the accounts allegedly
involving a traffic jam have now been discredited. Nevertheless, you never
know what else might turn up, so it's always worth noting these details.
Most of the photos give the definite impression of light traffic, but there
was one which made me not so sure.

We have a witness who can demonstrate that he was there at least
reasonably soon after it happened, and clearly claims to have seen an
AA jetliner fly into the Pentagon.The problem is in it's very late lodgement,
(more than 6 months! ) the lack of any critical questioning, the scant details
in the account apart from the identifiaction of the plane, and the possible
exaggeration that it was taken within a few moments of the crash. The
photos are the only redeeming factor which makes this account worthy
of further inquiry.
The cruical problem is whether Riskus's claim that it was an AA jetliner
has been made retrospectively, in the light of more than 6 months of the
official story, or whether he has claimed this from the beginning.We don't
know. Riskus also posted the photos at

http://criticalthrash.com/terror/crashthumbnails.html with the following
message

I took these photos less than 1 minutes after I watched the american
airlines 757 airplane crash into the pentagon on Sept 11 2001. I
left shortly after the picture were taken in fear of further attacks.

The message is not dated. But he is even more specific about the plane.
An AA 757. Since we don't know the date, it brings us no closer to being
able to determine whether Riskus is making this identification retrospectively.
But it does reveal that the communication between Scoop and Riskus
was done by email, not voice, because the distinctive spelling/language
in both postings indicates that both the Scoop comment and the
critical thrash comment were typed by the same person.

At http://www.artbell.com/letters21.html one of the Riskus photos is
posted with this caption

Steve Riskus sends us: I saw the plane crash into the pentagon
about 100 ft in front of me. Debri landed on my car.

It's undated. And with that message the Riskus account unravels.
How long could Riskus have seen the object for? As in the case of
Sucherman, at that range from inside a car, probably a maximum of
1 second. It's questionable whether even an aviation expert would be
able to so accurately identify a craft down to the exact model of jet
and the type of engines in that amount of time, especially under such
shocking, difficult and unexpected circumstances, amongst the deafening
and frightening noise. (which he doesn't mention) - and just for good
measure, while was trying to drive a car. And if Riskus has any specialised
knowledge of planes, he hasn't mentioned it, which would seem curious
given the nature of the debate.
But the deciding factor is the claim that debris landed on his car.
If he was driving at the time, and he took the photos within less than 1 minute
of the crash, then he must have taken them from virtually the same spot that he
stopped his car, which allegedly had been hit by debris. So have a good look at
the Riskus photos, and in particular at the other cars which are close to where
the photo was taken, and therefore close to his car. Do you see any sign that
debris has hit any of the other cars? Do you see any debris on the road? Do
you see any debris on the lawn between the Pentagon and the road? In all of
the photos, in combination, do you see any debris which has been flung out
anything like that kind of distance? So we're asked to believe that completely
contrary to the rest of the of the debris pattern, Riskus's car was hit, when
there is no sign of even a scrap of any other debris within at least 50 yards.
He also didn't take any photos of the damage to his car, or of the debris which
must have been sitting either on his car or on the road, right next to him. One
would think this had to be a photo well worth taking. So he had the presence
of mind in a stressful situation, to note exactly what model of plane it was, with
probably 1 second to see it, and the presence of mind to immediately start taking
photos, but not the presence of mind to photograph the miraculously unique
peice(s) of the plane, the only debris to have been flung that far out, which
just happened to hit his car and nobody elses, and presumably must have
damaged it. This account is so retrospective and poorly verified that the
only reason for considering it at all was the photos, and the photos do not
support the account.

In many hours of painstaking analysis of every search parameter I could think
of that offered any hope of finding eyewtiness accounts of the collision, this
was all I could find. The tools used were LexisNexis and Yahoo. Of course,
I can't guarentee that nothing slipped through the net, but the search was
exhaustive and meticulous. It's unlikely that anything significant was missed.

My conclusion is that there is no eyewitness evidence to support the theory
that F77 hit the Pentagon, unless my search has missed something very significant.
Given the strength of the photographic evidence that whatever hit the
Pentagon could not possibly have been F77, I can see no reason
for not stating this conclusion with a lot of confidence, unless and until
contrary evidence emerges.

So how and why was such a strong superficial impression generated that
the media was brimming with eyewitness reports? Basically, smoke and
mirrors. When you look at the total number of potential witnesses turned
up by this search, if you count only those which appeared superficially
to provide a clear eyewitness to the collision, there were only 18 and
one of these contradicted the official story.

Earlier, after dealing with the 8 witnesses which made it to the final
cut, on the Urban legends site, I noted that a suspiciously high number
of them were media workers.
After anaysis of all 18 reports, we find military personel even more
heavily represented. It's not surprising that there should be some, since
the incident took place an area with a high population of military personel,
but 8 of 18 is a very high proportion, especially when you add to it 5
from the media. Of the 5 remaining, there is no guarentee that some of
them might not also have been military. Timmerman was the only one
who gave an occupation, and being a pilot does not preclude the
possibility that he was military. It's clear that the govt and the military
have performed a brilliant feat of illusion here. But what of the media?
Were they in on it as well?

It's not neccesary to allege that the media were part of a malicious
conspiracy to fabricate the story. Some of the bogus reports can be
easily explained by the media's normal practice of bending the truth
a little in order to be able to present a good story, quickly enough to
keep up with their competitors. Combined with the desire not to upset
authorities at a time of patriotic shock and grieving, with talk of retaliatory
war already in the air, this would have made a strong incentive for the
media to publish any eyewitness they thought they could conjure,
regardless of accuracy or journalistic integrity.
All that would have been needed was for the administration to plant
a little well placed hearsay, and let the media do the rest in the inevitable
scramble to have the best and quickest story. The rationale of the media,
while not excusable, is easy to understand. In the frenzied period just after
the attacks, the word comes in to the office that the explosion at the
Pentagon was caused by a suicide plunge from a large passenger jet.
This would seem to make sense, given what had just happened in New
York. And the general frenzy and shock of the morning would not have
facilitated clear thinking, and there was the added confusion of the bogus
bomb report at the State Department.
Any story like this needs to have an eyewitness quote to fit the standard
media formula for an attractive report. So the desperate scramble would
have been on to find any eyewitness they could, as quickly as possible.Third
hand hearsay would probably have been good enough for most editors or
journalists in this situation. And they could easily rationalise the placement
of bogus quotation marks with the reasoning that "well I know that's basically
what she said, because so and so told me, and I haven't got time to track
her down before the deadline". Some would not have been above completely
fabricating a witness, with the rationalisation "well, I know that's what
happened, and I know plenty of people saw it, and I've got a deadline to
meet".
To provide an eyewitness account of my own, in my former capacity
as a media spokesperson for the Campaign to Save Native Forests, in
Western Australia, I was once falsely quoted in a similar context in Perth's
"Daily News". I was directly quoted as saying things which I had never
even implied informally, off the record. The journalist wanted a juicy story,
had a deadline to meet, and fabricated the entire interview. The first I
knew of it was when I read it in the paper. And I have no way to prove
that that's what happened.
So it's easy to explain how what appeared superficially to be dozens,
perhaps hundreds of eyewitness accounts has turned out after close
analysis to be nothing.
The fact such dishonest methods were needed in order to provide
eyewitness accounts for something which if it took place, could conceivably
have been clearly witnessed by dozens, maybe hundreds of people, is
itself evidence that the event simply didn't take place.

At this stage it's relevant to examine the alleged witnesses collectively.
Having established a fairly clear layout of the geography surrounding
the event we are now in a position to intelligently speculate on the following
question. If the event actually did take place, what would witnesses be likely
to have seen from the various vantage points around the Pentagon?
The locations come into four main categories. The arterial roads running
around the Pentagon's western perimiter, the cemetary, The Sheraton
Hotel, and the high rise area of Arlington.
From the nearby roads, mororists would have most likely have had a clear
view of the collision, but not enough time to make any accurate
identification of the plane, although it's possible that some might have
been able to suggest that it was probably a big plane. Cylclists or
pedestrians would have had a better chance of seeing the plane for longer,
and therefore an increased chance of being able to identify it, although this
probablity would still be best described as marginal. People in the southern
part of the cemetary would have experienced a plane fly over, frighteningly low.
They may have had a better chance of identifying it as a large plane, but
those on the west side would have had a marginal chance of seeing the collision.
People in tall buildings- the Sheraton or other high rise in Arlington would have
had the best chance of seeing both the collision and seeing the plane for long
enough to identify it, at least as a big plane. An examination of this shows us
that the collective pattern of evidence which we might expect is completely
absent. Timmerman said it flew right past the Sheraton, but there are no
witnesses from there. Was it empty at the time? My extensive searches
did not turn up a single reference to anyone from the Sheraton Hotel. A
qualification here. I was specifically searching for people who witnessed
a direct collision. This search of course accidently turned up other
eyewitnesses who " almost saw it", but I did not make an in depth examination
of these. So although my search did not turn up any reference to Sheraton
witnesses, I can not at this stage categorically rule out the possibility that
some "near miss witnesses" could turn up with search parameters specifically
tailored to look for this kind of witness. But I can say that my extensive
searches on the subject did not reveal a single witness in either category
from the Sheraton Hotel. The same goes for people in the cemetary. Was
there no-one in the southern section at the time? McGraw says he was
driving to a graveside service at the time. Given that he was almost there,
and had taken a wrong turn, it's reasonable to assume that it was close to
starting time and therefore a considerable number of people were already
gathered in one place in the cemetary. But there is no report of any such
group having collectively witnessed such an event. If this service was in the
north-western corner, then their experience would have been less dramatic.
Nevertheless they still would have heard the plane and seen it, and heard
the explosion, and perhaps seen the fire.So would have anybody who was
in the cemetary, but I didn't find a single witness from this area. This doesn't
prove that nothing happened. And it doesn't prove that nobody saw or heard
anything from the cemetary or the Sheraton. What it proves it that the media
were negligent in their duty to think about the incident and creatively seek out
important and reliable witnesses. It shows it that the reports are highly selective.
People in the Sheraton and in the cemetary would have seen something,
but nobody has asked them. Which brings me to another point. Many of
these witnesses were in a collective situation according to their reports,
but were curiously reported in a manner strongly reminiscent of a solo
experience. There were a number who said they were stuck in traffic,
but we don't have any collective sightings from people who all saw it
together while stuck in traffic.Others saw it from offices in Arlington
with no reference to any co-workers. There are no reports of collective
sightings of workers. (To be exact, I do remember one in this style, which
I discarded because nobody saw the collision.)
What about the taxi-driver who was injured by a pole which was knocked
down, according the McGraw account? The media love this kind of interview.
What about a group of motorists who were all sitting in the trafffic jam next to
each other, all relating what they saw in excited tones? The media love that sort
of thing of too. What about people who were narrowly missed by falling poles?
The media love that kind of interview. All of these tell tale signs of a normal
reporting pattern are missing. The whole thing is very manufactured. Compare
it with the live interviews and accounts of the WTC disaster. The press was
right on the spot. There were lots of live accounts, and as always happens
in such a situation, most of them were not very factual. Hysterical, crying, shocked
people were blurting out their experience in a highly emotional way. We saw
none of that with the Pentagon event. The reports are in general detatched
and factual like a retrospective witness statement to a police inquiry. 4 of the 18
are too late to have credibility. The collective impression of the eyewitness
reports at the Pentagon is one of a scripted event.

When I began this research, I was genuinely open minded. I wanted to
solve the problem of the contradiction between the witness evidence and
the photographic evidence.I was determined that if the eyewitness eveidence
was there, to find it and authenticate it. If it was fraudulent, to discover it
and expose it. My search led me convincingly to the latter path. I am now
convinced that F77 did not hit the Pentagon wall. If it was hit by a flying
object, which seems to be the case, it was hit by a missile or a small plane,
perhaps a drone military jet.
I anticipate the next question. "So what happened to the large passenger
jet that everyone was seeing in the area at the time? Did it just vanish? "
The question is pre-empting futher research which needs to be done. Was
there a a large passenger jet seen in the area at the time ? A superficial reading
of media reports would seem to suggest so. But then again, a superficial
reading of media reports seemed to suggest that there were eyewitnesses
to F77 hitting the Pentagon. Under close examination, these evaporated.
I won't pre-empt the result of future research into the question of whether
there were significant eywitness reports of a large passenger jet in the area
at the time. If it turns out that there is such evidence, that will create a new
mystery to be unravelled. But it needs to be acknowledged that claims of
mass sightings of a large passenger jet close to the event, have as far as I
am aware, not yet been subject to meticulous scrutiny of the type presented
here, and until such time as they are, any statements about them should be
tentative.
The other question which now needs to be adressed is "what happened to
F77" ? At this stage, I have no idea. But I am now convinced that it didn't
hit the Pentagon.

add your own comments

A military official said plane was shot down
Linda 12:12pm Mon Jun 17 '02
sunshinetimes@hotmail.com comment#1787

I was at work in Florida when all the 9-11 things started going on and news reports began to come in by phone and somebody turned on a TV and others turned on radios. It was still sometime in the morning. I wish I could be more specific about times and details but I can't because at the time, it didn't occur to me this would be so very important. However, a news broadcast that I distinctly heard come across the radio, with a live interview of a US military official said that one of the planes (I don't know if it was the one that supposedly hit the Pentagon or the one that went down in Philadelphia) had been SHOT DOWN by US Military because it wouldn't answer the radio.

Now, this was a very plain interview with this guy. He was making the statements himself. I was stunned that US military could or would shoot down an American craft with American citizens on it and that is what he was saying. An argument in the office ensued about this with other people taking the position that "anything that protects the US is necessary," etc. and my arguing the opposite, so I was not the only person who heard this interview. Other people have told me they heard a reporter on other broadcasts in different locations quote the same official at some other time. Again, I'm sorry for the vague details but I assume if somebody tries to run this down they can find it.

I never saw or heard this official again or any reference to him again or any reference to the American plane being shot down again other than that one time. Now why is that?

TARGET TV TRANSMITTERS
Fed Up 10:41am Tue Jun 18 '02
comment#1791

If it's not on TV, the general public won't believe it. Those who control broadcasting control the country. Get it?

Think Again.
Ron Harvey 10:51am Wed Jun 19 '02
tw45ph@softhome.net comment#1797


The plane at the Pentagon felled FOUR lamp posts. Measure the disatances between them.

A cruise missile or anythg else much smaller than a B757 could not possibly have done the same.

==============================================

Our self appointed detective wrote:

.. "If anyone (including Mr Winslow himself) can come foward
with evidence other than that quote, that an AP radio reporter named Dave
Winslow exists, I will willingly retract the statement,"

*** Should try harder before wasting our time.
.. AP seem to know who he is.
See:
http://www.apbroadcast.com/AP+Broadcast/About+Us/Press+Releases/AP+Radio+Gets+the+Stories+Behind+The+Attacks.htm

-------------------------

He also wrote: "If he's tucked into the area of Nash and Lynne st, near the Junction of 395
and Army Drive, then if he's looking directly at the helipad, the area where
he lost sight of the plane is at about 11 oclock.For a 60 - 100 ft wide building
to block 30 degrees of his vision, it would have to be between 35 and 60 yards
in front of him. This places his apartment further back from the edge
of the residential "area.Remember that he said he was 400- 450 yards away,
so we already stretching this severely, even without setting him back further
into the residential area. Worse still, from this position, he is already at a very
tight angle to be able to see much of the western wall, and what little he can
see would now be squeezed into a very narrow space along the edge of his
sight line. And given that the helipad (which photos show sufferered
miraculously little damage) juts out from the wall, he wouldn't be able to
see past it to see the damaged section. And yet he gives us a detailed
description of the damage. This isn't possible."


*** Yes it is. No problem. There are plenty photos taken from James House to be found all over the ww.web, e.g. by Tom Horan.

Look also at the aerial view on MapQuest.

==========================


And:

.. " There's a big problem with this account. McGraw says that the plane
passed directly over his car at power pole hight but that he didn't hear
anything until it was directly above. Totally impossible if it was a 757."

**** Not at all. It depends where you are. Consider the speed of sound. If a plane trevels faster than sound it will pass you before the sound does. If a plane travels directly towards you at perhaps two thirds of the speed of sound, you will have next to no time to be warned by hearing it, especially when it approaches from behind trees and buildings.

Have you bothered to confront any of the witnesses directly?

====================

And ---

"What has also emerged is that a suspiciously high number of these
dubious witnesses just happen to be media figures."

*** Rubbish. Nothing suspicious about it, in view of the usual nature of business in the vicinity. Who else would you expect to be sending in reports from that side of Washington?

-----------------

And ----

.. "Although I was only a few hundred yards away, I had to return to my
nearby hotel and turn on the TV in my room to find out the enormity of the calamity."

Question: " Why? Were reporters barred from getting close enough to see what
was really happening? If so, why? "

Answer: Very stupid! Anybody near to the building was thought to be in mortal danger. At one point, because of a false alarm, even the emergency services were withdrawn.

----------------

re.
http://www.dcmilitary.com/marines/hendersonhall/6_39/local_news/10797-1.html

N.B. Mark Bright said he "saw the plane at the Navy Annex area," not that he was watching from that area.
He was actually to the north of the event, nearer to the Mall entrance.

Question: " -- What sort of person hears an explosion -- and runs toward it? "

Answer: Somebody trying to do his doing his job perhaps?

It is a demonstrable matter of fact that he did drive immediately to the scene. He is the individual, with his car, to be seen e.g. to the left of this Riskus photo:
http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/P1010016.JPG

=========================================

with kind regards,

Ron Harvey

AA Flight 77 and the Pentagon
Henry Ayre 12:20am Mon Jul 8 '02
henri@alaska.net comment#1894

A Boeing 757 is a fairly large commercial jet. It is engineered to taxi, take off, fly, and land... nothing more. Thus it is fragile to any physical contact other than those for which it is engineered. When a plane of this size crashes it immediately breaks up into at least several large pieces and a great many smaller ones. Passengers, seats, luggage, galley, wheels, fairing, and engines are
dispersed over a large area if the area of the crash is positively identified... as it is - putatively - in the case of the object which crashed into the Pentagon. No one has seen ANY such wreckage from this supposed crash of a commercial 757 loaded with people. Thus, the was no such crash involving a commercial 757 Boeing. Period. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel. No wreckage, no Boeing 757. This allows us to pursue an entirely new line of inquiry, namely, what DID crash into the Pentagon? And it is exactly this very obvious and necessary line of inquiry which appears to be forbidden by various Federal government agencies and the mass media simply because (1) culpability for the events would probably be shifted from Arab groups
which are at present a very convenient bad guys, and (2) culpability for the events would probably be shifted to elements of the U.S. government itself with or without the help of elements of some foreign government. From the standpoint of the present U.S. government, such an inquiry is to be avoided at all costs. As to what did happen to Flight 77, we can only conjecture that it was either (1) ditched out to sea, or (2) landed at some secret, unused, or military airfield. As to the passengers, if this were a
"soft" military coup we could hardly expect the passengers to be allowed to live by the putchists. It is significant in the entire 9-11 operation that no one intimately involved in the action lived to tell what really happened, quite unlike most great tragedies.

100 m/s 100 tons?
berserk 12:28am Wed Jul 24 '02
comment#2054

http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/scan2.jpg

small hole, small plane.
some are saying, the pentagon is like a bunker, that's why...

look at the image... i don't think so.

why no marks on the wall?
http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/compall.jpg

some are saying, it's because it's reinforced with kevlar and some other garbage...

ok... but it's inside, and not outside.
outside is stone, and stone react like stone :)

but no marks... perhaps a 1945 hightech stone?
bullshit...