Correcting the distortion that 911 witnesses at the Pentagon sup****t the
official version of the attack
-----------------------------------------
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 plane --
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.
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
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
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 and organized them
into
a series of topics, each a feature of the 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.
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.
============================
You know the 9-11 Commission, fed only what gatekeeper Felzenberg allows
pass to them, has never seen or discussed any of the above, nor have they
given any indication that they are aware that the official version of
events
at the Pentagon has not withstood examination against the available
photo evidence and witness accounts.
So here is the analysis that I have been prevented from bringing to
the attention of the investigators and the nation.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/4
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/3
|
