Discussing the Pentagon Attack
Correspondence Eric Salter, A.K. Dewdney
At 9:10 PM -0700 5/27/04, senhor san wrote:
>Dear Eric Salter,
>
>I have just finished reading your critique of the "no-plane" theories
>
><http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html>http://www.questio
nsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html
>
>and find your analysis intelligent and, as far as I can see,
>thorough. I did not need much convincing, however your varied
>reasons for rejecting the "whatzit" hypothesis convinced me of your
>high competence in this kind of analysis.
>
>It so happens that I too have a thesis that denies that an airliner
>hit a building on Sept. 11, 01, as claimed. Is sat that evidence and
>witnesses indicate conclusively that Flight 77 overflew the
>pentagon as a smaller jet fired a missile into the Pentagon ahead of
>its own crash. I have gathered all of the evidence which yielded
>this conclusion on two webpages.
>
><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/4>http://groups.yahoo.c
om/group/911crimefile/message/4
>
><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/3>http://groups.yahoo.c
om/group/911crimefile/message/
>
>I am asking for your "peer review" of the seperate lines of proof
>-- for you to distribute to the 9-11 investigation community as you
>have your last investigation article.
>
>Can you refute the small plane thesis?
>
> I believe you will render a service to all who seek the truth about
>9-11 if you take on the "small-plane" thesis with the same critical
>eye you have applied to the theory of Webfairy's "whatzit."
>
>Respecting your service to the truth,
>
>Dick Eastman
>Yakima, Wa****ngton
From:Eric Salter <ericsalter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Date:Fri, May 28, 2004 8:50 am
To:"senhor san" <dharma@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, <sf911truthalliance@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
(more)
Subject:Re: Dear Eric Salter -- Would you please subject the Pentagon
"small-plane" thesis to your exacting analysis?
Dick,
Thank you for your feedback on my article. As for the Pentagon
crash, I don't think there's much I can do with that one. I took on
the WTC impacts because my specialty is video, and most of the
arguments there focused around the visual record. The only images we
have of the Pentagon crash are from the Pentagon security camera.
That's not much to go on, assuming these images are reliable to begin
with. There have been a lot of charged arguments back and forth
about the Pentagon, and I'm reluctant to take a strong stand on this,
mainly because I haven't studied this issue as much as I should have.
I feel there are strange anomalies in the physical evidence, but what
I really want to see is for someone to track down and talk to the
eyewitnesses about the no-plane scenarios. If there was a fly-over,
there should be a sizeable number of witnesses who would be willing
to entertain that possibility. If the witnesses balk at this, then I
think the case becomes much harder to sell to the public no matter
what the physical evidence. I think the public would generally
identify with these eyewitnesses as people like themselves and would
be somewhat hesitant to question their veracity. Just my two cents.
Sincerely,
Eric Salter
=========================
Dear Eric,
First of all, a good mind is a good mind.. If you don't have a good
mind
(a scientific, methodical, logical mind) your video expertise would not
count for much -- and with that kind of mind yhou can contribute
anywhere.
I have several compilations of witness statements. Three people saw
a two planes, one re****ting it veering away "as the other crashed."
Also I have interviewed Sgt. Willima Lagasse who not only saw
the Boeing headed towards the Pentagon, but was actually
blown into his car by the turbulence as it passed.
I know of no one outside the Webfairy "Hologram" school
who say there was no plane.
Actually there were at least four planes.
Boeing 757 -- seen by all approaching from the Hotel
The Killer jet -- leaving downed lamp posts and holes
in the Pentagon wall indicating an approach more from the
southwest.
The C-130 flown by O'Brian that went through the
smoke of the crash just 30 seconds after the event.
(Either a command plane, a spy plane to spot any
frame-up giveaway signs or a fake debris drop.)
A four-engine large plane that was doing dives in the
forbidden airspace over the Capitol -- photographed
and videotaped and shown on the BBC (a distraction
plane)
So the term "no plane" certainly does not describe
what I have called the "small plane" thesis.
Your specialty is video -- I wish you would look at the smoke
trail in the security camera video , and the white hot exposion
and the change in contrast between the second frame and the
rest. Would a bright flash turn up the contrast in a video
camera?
Also, I was very impressed how the smoke is drawn into
the explosion updraft in pictures 2,3,4 and 5. Compare that
exactness with, say, the Berg video or the fake bin Laden tapes.
(Why be so minutely correct on this aspect, while allowing
really big errors, like the next days date on the video camera?
You say the only images we have of the Pentagon crash are
from the Pentagon security camera - but that is not quite correct.
There are digital camera immages of the wall after the crash and
before its collapse 20 m8inutes later. Of great im****tance is
whether the imprint on the wall is consistent with a cra****ng 757 --
and some of that depends on interpreting what is shown.
At any rate, I do not agree that "there is not much to go on" with
the videos -- I see multiple lines of evidence bits (smoke trail, tail
fin,
explosion, image pro****tions and lengths) all pointing to the same
conclusion, all mutually reinforcing "small-plane" thesis.
Also the fact that arguments "go back and forth" should never
deter you -- since if this is the crime of the century then there are
going to be agents of a coverup attempting to mouth down those
pointing out the evidence. You can'b e believe that the people who
bought up all the newspapers and media networks to control opinion
would not also put spin agents and disinfo propagandists on the
internet, do you?
But I certainly agree and bewail the fact that you "havent studied
this issue as much as [you] should have."
Why not, when the evidence is the best around and intelligent people
(Prof. A,K. Dewdney, physics911 group, etc.) have reached definite
conclusions in favor of the small-plane finding.
And yes, there are witnesses and they sup****t the small plane thesis.
Check the quotes.
I implore you to have one good 10 minute look at the evidence on just
this one page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimedata/message/3
You will find your witness information here and in the included link in
that section.
===============================
Item #2:
A.K. Dewdney is well known for explaining fractal geometry to us in the
pages of Scientific American, where he has been and editor for eleven
years,
writing the brain teaser articles each month -- all of them always too
difficult for me, btw -- at least over any time frame that I could devote.
I discover to my dismay that he is less impressed with some features of my
analysis than I was hoping. Still the letter and the response is
instructive.
Date:Thu, 27 May 2004 00:21:59 -0400
From:"Kee Dewdney" <akd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Add to Address Book
To:"Dick Eastman" <oldickeastman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject:Re: ending it (thanks a lot for all your help)
Dear Dick,
I suppose that we have had little enough correspondence over the last
two years, but I was completely unaware of any rejection by myself
or Mr Longspaugh. The physics911 website was, until recently, run
by Sid Walker in Australia. Sid has gone mising and we are in emergency
modem getting a new, more public, version of physics911 up and running.
As far as I am concenred, you are one of the big names in 911 research.
Over the last year I have been rather upset to see email trafic where
people were calling each other horrible names, disinformationists,
assholes, etc. I may have seen on at least one occasion that you
were a target of this vituperation, but I cannot recall clearly. I can
only recall saying to myself,, "Oh dear, whay do we have to go
through this BS?" I was particularly upset by the attacks on the
webfairy and said as much to Kaminski recently. My suggestion
there was simply to declare the hologram theory as untestable
and to put it onthe back burner for now.
Of all your writings, the most impressive to me were the
examinations of eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon crash.
I wonder if you would be willing to post it on our new site - when
it's ready. You could include me as a joint author, if you like. that
way i could edit it into really readable form without changing an
iota of your thought. i might even be able to add something useful
myslef. Or you could file it under your own name.
Disentangling he Pentagon eyewitness accounts is of paramount
imortance.
Interested?
All the best
Kee Dewdney
----------
Dear Kee,
The Nazis during WWII, according to B.F. Skinner, conducted
research into when generals start making bad decisions -- and
the found that the one reliable indication was when they began
salting their speach with profanity. While I avoid the "a-h" word
I have been lapsing more and more into "sonofa*****" used
regularly by Truman and Patton, btw. Yet, I consider this usage
a failing.
I have been at odds with webfairy over her hologram theory
and other issues going back a long time -- but had you sent
my your argument that since the theory is untestable it should
be left alone -- I would have simply quoted you on the subject
and then dropped it.
Each bogus idea offered on a new 9-11 site takes out a ****tion
of our intelligent citizen reader****p -- until our ranks disappear
into Cantor dust or whatever. I think this is a strategy -- I see
many "no meat" 9-11 sites, all branching to other "no meat" sites,
and the small-plane thesis and physics 911 are never referenced.
Remember the fairy tale where the bad brother meets the little man
in the woods who shows him the tree where the gold is hidden,
and, after exacting a promise from the old man not to remove the
gold or to remove the ribbon, goes and comes back only to find
a ribbon on every tree making it impossible to find the true with
the gold. This is the strategy of the coverup, I suspect.
You say that the most impressive thing I did was analysis of the
witness statements -- which means, I am wondering, that you
do not find the security video camera elements (white smoke trail,
too short a plane given the image of the tail fin, the length of
fuselage that could be hidden behind the obstruction and the
known pro****tion of 757 fuselage length to its tail; too short
a plane given the image, the obstruction and the known fact
that the Boeing is twice as long as the building is tall) --
but when A.K Dewdney is unimpressed I myself begin to have
doubts, where up til now I have been firmly convinced. So, I am
ready for the worst, why aren't you "impressed" by this
line of demonstration?
At any rate -- if you put what you want about witnesses in the
form of a question I will do my best to scour files and
see what I can provide.
Here is some of what I have -- or are you looking for
some different aspect of witness accounts.
Meanwhile there is witness analysis here:
http://eastman.batcave.net/
(unfortunately this is always -- exceeding
its limit of 40 Meg per day )
and here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimedata/message/4
(scroll down 4/5's to the bottom)
and here
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/Eastman/m7b3.html
(scroll 5/6ths down)
My written interview of Sgt. William Lagasse, witness to the
crash:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/20
Follow-up (Sgt. Lagasse) THE MOST IM****TANT OF THE TWO:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/21
I hope this is of use. Everything I write is for anyone to copy, revise,
improve , borrow,
elaborate, correct as they see fit.
(ALthough I reserve the right to call you a sonofa***** if I disagree and
it is one of
my high stress days. (God help me mortify the flesh.)
Sincerely,
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Wa****ngton
Robert A. Leonard: The aircraft, so close to the ground, was banked
skillfully to the right, leveled off perpendicular to the Pentagon's
southwest side, then went full throttle directly toward the building."
Christopher Munsey: "I couldn't believe what I was now seeing to my right:
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."
Terry Morin: "I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet
above
me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) [above the Navy Annex] in a slight nose
down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down
the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American
Airlines.
.. .As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash. . .As
the
aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe
as
a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now
only see the tail of the aircraft. . . .The tail was barely visible when
I
saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above
the
Pentagon."
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
Timmerman: ...being next to National Air****t, 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 it 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
....
Comment: This witness was north of the crash. He heard a jet louder than
the normal air traffic at nearby Reagan National (which includes routine
Boeing 757 landings.) When he looked out his window, however, he saw
Flight
77 to the southwest, and most significantly, he actually states that the
plane he was watching "didn't appear to crash into the building"!!!!
Here is a CNN re****ter questioning another witness:
CNN: You got a close-up look at the damage, didn't you?
Wit: Yes, I was right next to the building.
CNN: And what did you see?
Wit: I saw a big, gaping hole and I could see pieces of the plane inside.
CNN: Earlier, an eye-witness told us the plane didn't crash into the
building.
Wit: Well, I don't know what it looked like from where he was, but I
looked
right inside the hole and I know it crashed into the building.
Comment: The man being interviewed by CNN above was also a CNN re****ter.
No
one else re****ts having seen in the hole pieces of aircraft, and of course
the absence of debris commensurate with a mid-sized airliner crash is a
topic that continues to be much discussed. Yet here again we have mention
of a man who says the plane he observed did not hit the Pentagon.
O'Keefe: saw or heard it first -- this silver plane; I immediately
recognized it as an American Airlines jet It came swooping in over the
highway, over my left shoulder, straight across where my car was heading.
Comment: In a car it is hard to tell the direction of the sound of a jet.
The jet must have been loud to be heard in his car. He heard the loud
killer jet, but saw the Boeing "swooping," i.e., leveling out from a
dive.
He does not say whether he was in view of the actual crash event.
Sucherman: It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the
ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his wind****eld. 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
National Air****t. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to
change
direction. 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."
Comment: Here is the classic killer jet observation. No mention of a
dive,
in fact he goes out of his way to say it was not coming in a steep angle.
The killer jet was coming fast, unlike the coasting 757.
Anon2: "I did not see the engines, I saw the body and the tail; it was a
silver jet with the markings along the windows that spoke to me as an
American Airlines jet, it was not a commercial, excuse me, a business jet,
it was not a lear jet, it was a bigger plane than that.".
Comment: Obviously this witness falls between the two categories. Not
seeing engines would put the plane in the killer jet category. But a
larger
than Lear jet size is indicated as well as American Airlines markings.
Taking it literally, he saw Flight 77 but just did not pay attention to
the
engines. (Alternatively, the killer jet was bigger than an F-16 and
outfitted in American Airlines "drag.")
Campo: It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane. I was
cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head.
Comment: This is the Arlington National Cemetary gardener. Like Riskus,
his
testimony puts the real Flight 77 over the cemetary, from where it would
have been impossible for any plane to have rendezvoused with the five lamp
posts northeast of the cemetery and then bent its path around sufficiently
to reach the crash point at the proper angle to also exit the c-ring hole.
Vaughn: There wasn't anything in the air, except for one airplane, and it
looked like it was loitering over Georgetown, in a high, left-hand bank.
That may have been the plane. I have never seen one on that pattern.
Comment: General Vaugh was not alone in what he saw. Many other witnesses
saw Flight 77 putting on an attention- getting exhibition over D.C. as if
to
draw all eyes to itself and away from the true appraoching killer.
Liebner: I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast
and low.
My first thought was I've never seen one that high. Before it hit I
realised
what was happening.
Comment: Captain Liebner does not tell us what he means by "low." Was it
100 feet or 20 feet? But the term "coming in" indicates a descent.
Here are more witness accounts:
Kelly Knowles from an Arlington apartment two miles away saw two planes
moving toward the Pentagon, one veering away as the other crashed.
Tom Seibert, in the Pentagon, listened to " what sounded like a missile"
followed by a "loud boom."
Keith Wheelhouse and his sister, Pam Young were preparing to leave a
funeral
at Arlington Naitonal Cemetary when they watched "the jet" approach and
hit
the Pentagon. Both saw another plane flying near the jet that crashed.
When asked if the other plane could have been an airliner performing a
normal landing at Reagan National Air****t, Wheelhouse stated that he was
not
confused by normal air****t traffic.
Alfred S. Regnery, on the freeway with the Pentagon not yet in view, heard
a
jetliner "not more than 200 yards above the ground" passed overhead,
disappearing "behind black cloud of smoke" was pouring from a "gaping
hole."
Comment: Another witness hearing the loud sound and seeing the jet liner
and assuming that sound source and object sited are one and the same. But
note that he saw an airliner and that it was 200 yards above the ground,
not
20 feet.
Terry Scanlon interviewed a Hampton Roads woman who saw a plane following
the jet that hit the Pentagon.
Christine Peterson, in her car in front of the heli****t ( near Riskus) saw
the airliner. As it flew over she could read numbers on its wing. "My
mind
could not comprehend what happened. Where did the plane go? ... But there
was no plane visible, only huge billows of smoke and torrents of fire."
Comment: It would certainly be jumping to conclusions to say that this
witness saw that plane crash. Watching the Boeing she missed entirely the
killer jet that came from another direction.
James S. Robbins, from his west-facing office window, one and a half
miles
east of the
Pentagon, saw "the 757" as it was "diving in at an unrecoverable angle."
"I
did not immediately comprehend what I was witnessing. There was a silvery
flash, an explosion, and a dark, mushroom shaped cloud rose over the
building."
Comment: The plane was diving. But it must have recovered from the dive
at
the last second, because the pentagon was not hit by a plane at a downward
angle. The killer jet travelled from the entrance hole to the C-ring exit
hole without breaking above the floor of the third floor!!! Robbins saw
the
Boeing that did not crash and the explosion and smoke made by the killer
plane that did.
Christopher Munsey headed South on the Interstate saw "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."
Munsey saw the red and blue markings "as it appeared to hit the side of
the
Pentagon."
Comment: A silver twin-engined plane had to have been Flight 77, seen
"over
the Annex", i.e., over Arlington Cemetary hill, it had American Airlines
markings and it was "noiseless," but notice the indefinitness: "it
appeared
to hit the side of the Pentagon" -- there are usually psychologically
definite reason why people qualify their speech, in this case, perhaps,
pshycological reservations about what he really did see.
Fred Gaskins was driving near the Pentagon as he saw the plane pass about
150 feet overhead. "It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any
hint
that anything was wrong."
Comment: Near the Pentagon, but still 150 feet in the air. How could it
hit
those poles? How could it come in for its below-the-third-floor crash
through three rings of the Pentagon?
And there is this (with Jim Hoffman):
How could the Pentagon have been approached by a second jet and the
witnesses not re****t seeing two planes at once? The answer rests in
part
in im****tant new information from the Department of Trans****tation
concerning research on modification of peoples memories of accidents.
Sarah Roberts once asked me, "Why do you impose your "two plane" theory on
every witness account you come across?"
I replied that I did so because we are talking about a frameup murder
case,
and in a frameup the murder weapon is very im****tant and so are the
witness
accounts of that weapon. But of course it is the evidence and the
witnesses
that, when taken seriously, impose conclusions on the investigator.
We have security camera proof that the real murder weapon was the plane
that came in low and fired the missile. But Flight 77 was the frameup
lane -- the plane people were supposed to think was piloted by cunning
Arab
suicides with box cutters etc. Yes Flight 77 airliner was there, and it
really was seen by Robbins, Regnery, Eglas and others -- but seen by
Eglas
only at first, I am convinced -- before she turned her attention to the
hit
pole and the freeway traffic around her as she, as she says, stopped on a
busy freeway, so that when she was ready to start looking for the plane
again her attention was then caught by the split second glimps of the
small
jet (that we see in the video) cra****ng into the white-hot missile
explosion
at the west wall of the Pentagon.
When a jet attacks at high speed from near ground level no one sees it
coming -- from the annex to the wall would take about three seconds, and
no
one was expecting it -- many had been looking at the airliner -- but
doing
so in a place where airliners coming in low are quite usual, only a mile
from Reagan National Air****t. However there was also the news that was
then coming in from New York, news that conditioned the soon-to-be
witnesses
to think in terms of hijacked airliners -- and that conditioning was
reinforced, for many witnesses, by the long and showy display put on by a
mysterious four engine airliner-sized jet that tarried over Wa****ngton
D.C., and actually did some attention getting dives over the capital.
Here
are some pictures of that plane in a dive timed perfectly to coincide with
the real Pentagon attack by the small plane with a missile. [pictures
here]
The case is solved. We know there were two planes, in fact four planes
part
of the operation. The killer jet, the Boeing, the four-engined plane
doing
dives over the Capitol, and the C-130 that followed the Boeing over the
crash just 30 seconds after the killer jet hit the wall. That is why I
talk
about them.
I know why I am here -- because I think organized crime has taken over
the
government of my country and has perpetrated the murder upwards of 2000
people in a frameup to start a war to attain objectives having to do with
oil, gold. opium revenues, and a new Zionist empire over the entire Middle
East, and a debt-slavery dictator****p over the US in the form of the
perpetual anti-terrorism war state. I do all this for nothing because I
don't want to see this happen, to see this continue to happen, to see this
succeed.
But no one has ever mentioned seeing that phantom F-16.
True, but air traffic controllers noted that the "blip" was moving in
ways
characteristic of a jet fighter and military men in the Pentagon heard a
jet fighter during the attack.
And an F-16 is just what people would not pay attention to because F-16's
are what you expect to see flying around Wa****ngton D.C., they are what
you
would expect to see in a time of threat, when the nation is thought to be
under immediate attack. Remember an F-16 was acutally circling the plane
that went down in Pennsylvania. In fact the air should have been filled
with F-16's.
And what better cover than that the killer jet appear like an aircraft
doing
the right thing and "chasing" the Boeing, so that even if the psycological
factors built into the operation had failed and people had seen and
recongnized the killer jet hitting the Pentagon, there would be the ready
cover story that the F-16 was merely chasing the Beoing to intercept it
and
had met with an accident. They did not use that fallback, but in
retrospect, from their point of view, perhaps they should have.
I have never anywhere said that any witness recognized the small plane
attacker as an F-16, but the F-16 is a plane of the length and
pro****tions
(tail fin shape) that fits the security camera video recording of the
actual attack. It is a plane that would carry the missile that we see
being
fired (we see the characteristic smoke plume, that could be nothing else
--
and we see the tell-tale warhead white-hot explosion.)
A police officer radioed in "Motor 14, it was an American Airlines plane,
uh, headed eastbound over the Pike (Columbia Pike highway), possibly
toward
the Pentagon." The im****tant thing here is that it was re****ted
"eastbound," whereas the killer jet was headed north-northeast by the
compass. Obviously this officer was looking at the frameup airshow
higher
up -- he was looking at the plane that soon afterward slipped onto the
tarmac at Reagan National. But no one could be expected to take in what
was
really happening all at once in the course of an action that took all of
four seconds on the vicinity stage we have explored above.
No witnesses was in a position to know the "whole story." Each was
subjected to, at most, four seconds of seeing Flight 77 on display --
and
of course the other distraction over D.C. And then there was the
distracting
explosion. And those who saw the attack fighter, the actual killer plane,
they could not have watched if for more than, at most, two seconds -- as
they drove their cars on a busy highway, as they listened to the news from
New York, as they managed their vehicles in the confusion, as they mixed
in
their minds the airliner they had just seen above with the sudden
shattering
spectacular horrible event that errupted on the west wall of
the Pentagon. They saw what they were conditioned to see, what they were
capable of seeing.
Their minds, forty minutes after the first crash in New York were
anchored
on airliners, on hijackers -- and here really was an airliner above them
--
then eyes riveted -- but then just as suddenly confusingly vanished in a
flash, an explosion and profusely emitted smoke -- why look for airliners
flying away behind that smoke when you are already sure you know what
happened?
The psychological dimension was well planned -- and you can rely on it --
better than perhaps you may now believe.
You know the Chinese saying:
"Two thirds of what we see is behind our eyes."
Here is demonstration of how even a mind as good as yours can be tricked
into not seeing things that are right in front of your face.
Rather our apprehension of events is directed by our preconceptions, by a
schema that controls subsequent "seeing." These schemata bias the way we
view, interpret, and remember events.
Do this very im****tant experiment.
Count the F's in this sentence:
FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE-
SULTS OF YEARS OF SCIENTIF-
IC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE
EXPERIENCE OF YEARS.
Read and count once more to be sure, then remember the
total. (I'll give you the answer below.)
Now let us talk about the conditionable mind.
According to one mid-1970's poll, 70 percent of Americans remember seeing
the assassination of John F. Kennedy on television in 1963. The truth is
that although still photos were puglished in magazines, the film was not
shown on television until 1776 (Saturday Review, 1978).
But first there were two more F's than the three that you counted.
You counted only the unvoiced frictives, i.e., the "f-sound", but not the
voiced frictive "f's" that have the "v" sound, e.g., "of," -- and so
your
mind was looking for voiced frictives and voiced frictives were all that
you
found -- even as people were looking for airliners that had been hijacked
by crazed Arab fundamentalists or Anarchists or anti-globalists and
airliners were all that people saw (except for the extraordinary few --
who believed their eyes and ears and re****ted jet fighter sounds and
smaller
planes of a size that "could seat no more than 12 passengers" etc. You
were not looking for "f's" that sound like "v's" and witnesses with
their
minds previously anchored on hijacked airliners cra****ng into buildings
were
not looking to see a stealthy ground hugging jet fighter attack.
Social psychologist David Meyers of Hope College, reached these
conclusions
after a psychological study of witnesses and the variables that affect
their re****ting of events:
"Studies of conflicting eyewitness testimonies further illustrate our
tendency to recall the past with great confidence but meagre accuracy.
Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer showed University of Wa****ngton
students
a film of a traffic accident and then asked them questions about what they
saw. People who were asked "How fast were the cars going when they
smashed
into each other." gave higher estimates than those asked "How fast were
the
cars going when they hit each other?" A week later they were asked
whether
they recalled seeing any broken glass. Although there was no broken
glass
in the accident, people who had been asked the question with "smashed
into"
were more than twice as likely as those asked the question with "hit" to
re****t seeing broken glass. This demonstrates how in constructing a
memory
we unconsciously use our general knowledge and beliefs to fill in the
holes, thus organizing mere fragments from oujr actual past into a
convincing memory."
Here is a statement by Dr. Loftus that describes a type of conditioning
that
must be understood in evaluating the testimony of witnesses of the attack
on
the Pentagon:
"A former professor of mine at Stanford left to take a job with the U.S.
Department of Trans****tation in Wa****ngton D.C. He had been on the job a
short time when our paths crossed, and he said, "You know, there's a great
need for good research on traffic accidents, and there's money to sup****t
it." Unfortunately, I was studying memeory for words and didn't know much
about traffic accidents (except for the few that I'd had myself as a
teenager). One day, I was struck with a thought, and I announced to my
[husband and colleague] Geoff: "I'm going to study memory for traffic
accidents." Big deal, " he said, unimpressed. His lack of enthusiasm
wasnt' surprising, since I had no particular scientific hypothesis, and no
specific research ideas. But I started wondering about the interaction
between accidents and the words people use to describe them. I talked to
colleagues about the accidents they had been involved in, and noticed that
different people
described an event in different ways. I began wondering whether I could
change the way people remembered their own accidents as a function of the
words I used to ask about the event. The experiments I did showed that
indeed people's memories for these sorts of events could be modified
rather
easily. I owe a great debt to the colleague who suggested the title for
the
article that described this work: "Reconstruction of automobile
destrcution." (Elizabeth Loftus, University of Wa****ngton)."
So we all selectively notice, interpret, and recall events in ways which
sustain our ideas,
but our memories can be modified by planting new ideas about the event
during questioning or conversation or even listening to the news.
Thus there are both physical and psychological reasons why no one said
"there is an F-16". A plane that goes by at 600+ mph at 15 feet, while
everyone is listening to the radio about New York being hit by airliners,
while an airliner four times as long and sheathed in polished aluminum
with
red, white and blue markings is flying towards the Pentagon over the
Sheraton, over the Annex against the sky for most observers and soon
followed by a big expolsion -- and everyone
on the radio etc. talking about the third airliner this time hitting the
Pentagon etc.
I say that the planners of the 911 mass murder frameup thought they
could
reliably count
on no one catching the psy-op deception built into their plane [this is
the
kind of thing that psy-op operatives do, by the way -- they are
constantly
studying how to pull covert operations like this -- ond of course they
then relied on their control of the media and of investigations and public
announcements and fake witnesses and "conspiracy theory debunkers" to
overwhelm those who were not fooled.
When someone says he saw a plane of a size that could not possibly have
held
more than at
most 12 passengers, to me that statement does not exclude
the F-16 which holds one or two persons (or no passengers or pilot if it
is
flying under remote control) but it does exclude the Boeing 757 which
holds 170 passengers.
The fighter made a long low, ground hugging approach making it very
difficult to see against the
landscape-- in fact since it came in so low, it is practically overhead
when
it comes into view. Especially as they are in their cars on a busy
freeway,
watching either the Boeing or the acrobatic distraction plane over
Wa****ngton, and possibly even the huge C-130 bringing up the rear. We are
talking an interval of no more than three seconds plus these distraction
plus the planting of suggestion by media both during the attack (while
listening to the news out of New York) and afterwards (everyone talking
about and asking about "Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon" etc.
The missile begins firing within a second before frame one was taken,
somewhere to the left of the location, perhaps just as it crossed the Pike
and came over the grass. Of course the smoke of the missile would confuse
and distract witnesses even more -- as the testimony about the "bounce"
(that never happened) attests.
From pictures of the damage to the Pentagon, there is a clear tunnel that
runs from the impact
area of the outside wall through to C ring. That tunnel was made by an
engine,
which is the heaviest part of a plane, and the part with the greatest
momentum. There is only one such tunnel. Those who speak of this claim it
to
be evidence of a 757, but this is not correct. There is only one, and it
means that the plane that hit the Pentagon was a single engine plane.
Furthermore, in order for the engine to make a straight and round tunnel,
it would have to have been balanced at the moment of impact; an engine
under
a wing would be given some angular momentum by the crash, and not leave a
straight and round tunnel as it plowed through the building. Only an
engine
positioned at the center of the plane would leave such a tunnel.
The wall has not collapsed yet and both fire trucks are working on
secondary
fires after the interior fire was put out. So what happened to the plane?
It certainly isn't on this lawn.
Jim Hoffman again:
In the following, I have excerpted quotes from Penny [Schoner's
compilation
of witness statements] and organized them into a series of topics, each a
feature of the [small-plane] theory.
First I summarize the topics and how they relate to the theory.
* supersonic attack jet Sonic booms are not
produced by subsonic jetliners.
* poles clipped by other than 757 flyover
Details in re****ts about the clipped light-poles
suggest it was not the work of the 757. (How
could the tail of a 757 with level attitude clip
poles when it's 10 feet higher than the wings.)
* engine rev-up
The sound of the supersonic attack jet was
interpreted as the 757's engines revving up
as it crossed the lawn.
* impact before building
People's initial perceptions of the impact
happening out in front of the building are
explained by the 757 disappearing into the
smoke a few hundred feet out in front of
the building.
* shockwave/concussion
There was a pronounced shockwave felt from
thousands of feet away.
Only an explosive detonation (not a jetfuel fireball!)
could produce such a concussion.
* bright flash
The bright flash helped distract people from where the
events were relative to the building.
* exploding engine
The perception that the 757's starboard engine
exploded is explained as mistaking of the impact
and explosion of the F-16 with for engine of
the nearby 757.
* shredded airplane
Of course jetliners don't shred themselves and
throw parts hundreds of feet in the air when they
crash, but the F-16 would when hit by a missile.
* bizarre physics
Perceptions of physically impossible events are
a natural consequence of seeing confusing events.
supersonic attack jet
---------------------
Rains Lon
Eyewitness: The Pentagon By Lon Rains Editor, Space News, was driving up
Interstate 395 from Springfield to downtown Wa****ngton. I heard a very
loud, quick whoo****ng sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in
front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact
and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball. I was convinced
it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane.
Sucherman Joel
I heard a sonic boom and then the impact, the explosion. ... There were
light poles down.
poles clipped by other than 757 flyover
---------------------------------------
Narayanan Vin
The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about
25 feet. The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging
exit sign above meas it headed straight at the Pentagon.
Owens Mary Ann
The plane, the wall and the victims disappeared under
coal-black smoke, three-story tall flames and intense heat
McGraw Stephen
The plane clipped the top of a light pole just before it got to us,
engine rev-up
-------------
Ryan James
At that point the plane was slow, so that happened concurrently with the
engines going down. And then straighten up in sort of suddenly and hit
full gas.
Sepulveda Noel
You could hear the engines being revved up even higher
impact before building
----------------------
Anlauf Deb and Jeff
It was just this huge fireball that crashed into the wall (of the
Pentagon).
Harrington Joe
It seemed like it made impact just before the wedge.
It was like a Hollywood movie or something.
Hovis Tom
I cannot understand how that plane hit where it did giving
the direction the aircraft was taking at the time.
Kean Terrance
And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke
everywhere .. . . It was very sort of surreal.
Sayer John
At first I thought an airplane had hit in front of the Pentagon,
but when I got closer I saw that it had struck the Pentagon.
Liebner, Lincoln
The plane went into the building like a toy into a birthday cake.
The aircraft went in between the second and third floors.
Narayanan Vin
The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed.
But the Pentagon's wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as
the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before
exploding into a massive fireball.
Morin Terry
I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor
turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the
flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above
the Pentagon.
Munsey Christopher
hurtled by and within moments exploded in a ground-shaking
"whoomp" as it *appeared* to hit the side of the Pentagon.
[emphasis added]
Timmerman Donald
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 it 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.
Elgas Penny
At the point where the fuselage
hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw
a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with
the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage
at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. . . . the
wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion
and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building.
shockwave/concussion
--------------------
Anderson Steve
There was a huge blast. I could feel the air shock wave of it,
Bauer Gary
The blast literally rocked all of our cars.
Dobbs Mike
he saw an American Airlines 737 twin-engine airliner strike the building.
Sepulveda Noel
For a brief moment, you could see the body of the plane sticking out from
the side of the building. Then a ball of fire came from behind it."
An explosion followed, sending Sepulveda flying against a light pole.
Thompson Phillip
The fireball that erupted upon impact blossomed skyward, and the blast
hit us in a wave.
Shaeffer Kevin
Kevin Shaeffer was sprawled by the shock wave,
Yeingst William
Just prior to the impact there were three firemen on the helipad at the
Pentagon. ... They turned and ran, and at the point of impact were
partially
****elded by their fire truck from the flying debris of shrapnel and
flames.
They were knocked to the ground by the concussion.
Owens Mary Ann
I could feel both the car and my heart jolt at the moment of impact.
An instant inferno blazed about 125 yards from me.
Marc Ab****re
his office is on the D ring, near the eighth corrider, he said.
It shot me back in my chair. There was a huge blast. I could feel the
air shock wave of it, I didn't know exactly what it was. It didn't
rumble.
It was more of a direct smack.
Morin Terry
Associated with that was the increase in air pressure, momentarily, like
a
small gust of wind. For those formerly in the military, it sounded like a
2000lb bomb going off roughly ½ mile in front of you.
bright flash
------------
Robbins James S
(from 1.5 miles away) There was a silvery flash, an explosion, and a
dark,
mushroom shaped cloud rose over the building
exploding engine
----------------
Tom McClain
I saw the remains of the engines in the North parking lot of the Pentagon
as well as melted aluminum and other debris left from the aircraft.
Krohn Charles H.
One of the aircraft's engines somehow ricocheted out of the building and
arched into the Pentagon's mall parking area between the main building
and
the new loading dock facility,
Probst Frank
The plane's right wing went through a generator trailer like butter.
The starboard engine hit a low cement wall and blew apart.
I dove towards the ground and watched this great big engine from this
beautiful airplane just va****ize. It looked like a huge fireball,
pieces were flying out everywhere.
....
the jet vani****ng in a cloud of smoke and dust,
shredded airplane
-----------------
Faram Mark
all over the highway were small pieces of aircraft skin, none bigger
than a half-dollar.
Bouchoux Donald R.
There was an enormous fireball, followed about two seconds later by
debris
raining down. The car moved about a foot to the right when the shock wave
hit.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/4
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/3
|
