Correcting the distortion that 911 witnesses accounts of the Pentagon
attack sup****t the official version of what happened.
-----------------------------------------
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."
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.
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. [Note: since this was written in 2002 it has come to
light
(photo and video sup****ting) that the plane diving over D.C. was a
four-engine plane with wings more swept back and more forward on the
fuselage than the 757 -- and this over forbidden air space! Obviously a
distraction plane. See photos of this plane diving directly over the
capitol buiding by clicking on the URL at the bottom of this message. --
DE 5/30/04]
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
yourmind 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 our
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
|
