A board that I recently began reading and posting to, rigorousintuition, took a sudden and weird turn a day or so ago, when the administrator of the broadly intellectual discussion forum, his name is Jeff, enacted a rule, which seemed to target me, or so I felt. Henceforth, he said, there was to be no discussion in support of the controversial "no-plane theory" regarding the September 11, attacks on the World Trade Center. Dumbly, I still claim, I did just that, by posting what I thought was a very good video, September Clues #7.
Apparently, Jeff was familiar with it, for he quickly locked the thread and offered this link, "September Clues" is a Fraud as a rebuttal. That effort is by a Mike Swenson, who must be kept busy as the host of "Revolution Radio" and webmaster for Real Inside News, as he doesn't put much time into this video rebuttal, which consists of taking a 20-second clip from one of the previous six September Clues, which represents, he says,
"some BIG TIME fakery by those that claim the mainstream media used “TV Fakery” on 911. Ironic huh?"
and attaching a 47-second YouTube clip and inviting us to compare. Neither has any sound, and since illustrating sound volume was the purpose of the clip in September Clues, Swenson in return could stand accused of audio trickery. He says "Real Inside News has uncovered some startling information, based on observations of the film." That there are "a couple of troubling discrepancies," which amount to "two anomalies," which "are classic signs of video manipulation." He may have a point or he may not.
There are clear distinctions between the two clips. The problem though is, what we see we see only for a second, and it doesn't look remotely like a jet-plane in either clip, both appear to have been altered with a felt-tip pen. And it would be dancing on the head of a pin to try and show a malicious manipulation of the imagery by socialservice, towards any goal, with this in-your-face snippet, especially as alteration is the theme of the video, and this example would be--how shall I put it?--lacking in subtlety. Swenson says other distinctions may also be relevant, but the one I noticed--the planes appear to be striking at different heights of the building--had the "official" example too high, in my opinion.
Swenson posts some screen grabs so we can study at our leisure, then he appends an "update to this story," writing, "Further examination of the film September Clues has brought me yet another strange anomaly and further evidence of tampering with official footage taken from September 11th." This brings up an important point for all of us to consider. The footage is and will remain a permanent public resource, ultimately we will all have to come to some decisions over the meaning of what we find in there.
Swenson embeds a 35-second video clip from September Clues consisting of part of a telephone interview Bryant Gumble conducted with Theresa Renaud, who's the wife of one of the producers of Bryant's program, The Morning Show, recorded during a critical stretch--including the moment of the second plane strike. Reynaud is the person who exclaims,"Oh my God! Another plane has just hit another building!" Every network had someone doing this job. NBC had Elliot Walker, a female producer, husband unnamed.
Integral to the plot, and the claims of TV Fakery made in the video, is how these eyewitness actors bridge the 18-second lag between our screen times and the real time in downtown New York. Renaud "sees" the plane, for us, and her exclamation, "a plane," is the foundation of our new reality. Bryant isn't seeing a plane on his monitor when she does, so he's incredulous, "You see a plane," he asks? He still isn't seeing a plane when the tape first replays. NBC was running a live shot off of a helicopter, zooming in for closeups, out for wide angle views--then, during the grave moment of impact, they switch to a shot from a never-before-seen camera and angle, one that completely obscures the impact, for just those few seconds, then back to the wide aerial shot. Why? Show us the uninterrupted aerial pan! Likewise, CNN has a live newscaster on the scene but he fails to acknowledge the crash as we see it on screen.
The object of Swenson's objection is some cuts Socialservice has made of Renaud describing her location, which Swenson says displays malicious intent to diminish Renaud's credibility and deceive the public. But the clarity or accuracy of her witness is never an issue in the video, so there is nothing to undermine. But this brings up a different point.
From the transcript:
Bryant: Um you’re over in Chelsea um did you hear the explosion from your position? Theresa: Oh yes as a matter of fact we heard it cause I was just standing there pretty much just looking out the window. I didn’t see what caused it or if there was an impact. Bryant: So you have no idea…
(31:54) 9:02am Theresa: Oh! There’s another one! Another plane just hit! Oh! Oh my God! Another plane has just hit another building! Flew right into the middle of it! An explosion! My God, it’s right in the middle of the building.
Later they had this exchange:
Bryant: You’re in Chelsea right?
Renaud: (12:32) Yes we’re on the 14th floor 360 degree view perfectly clear a straight shot I would say that the explosion was much larger on the first impact than the second.
Bryant: You heard both?
Renaud: Yes, I saw the impact from the second building, I saw the explosion come from the building on the first one.
Bryant: Un huh.
Neither of them recognized the significance of what she was saying. Renaud tells us she was basically standing there, looking out her south-facing window, when she suddenly sees an explosion and fireball rising from the top of Tower 1, but what of the plane? She was perfectly positioned to see the airplane's arrival down the length of Manhattan, but for some reason she doesn't.
Although it may ultimately be determined that Reynaud fabricated her witness of the second plane, nonetheless, she rightly, if unwittingly, reports her witness of the absence of the first. (Te he he. My God works this way. I think I'll keep him)
This video reminds me of Stein's "there is no there, there," and how anyone can pretend otherwise is hurtful. Jeff's proffering this video as carrying the meaning of rebuttal, with a value of argument, is very disturbing to me. Surely he isn't serious about it in any way addressing some factual point made in September Clues 7? The most likely to be flung epitaph in the coming months may be insane, so instead, I'll say, Jeff's behavior here is unreal. But revealed is Jeff's participation in a high-level consortium that attempts to steer the blogosphere.
Coincidentally to this, Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Jim Fetzer were on a radio program comparing notes on what they perceived to be a putsch that was shutting down internet chat and discussion groups devoted to the no-plane topic, so it's hard not to feel a conspiracy practice underway, and that Jeff, who in my brief experience on his board always came across as rigorous, if not intuitive, is a part of it. Fetzer and Wood worried this indicated a major false-flag operation was imminent. I think the devastating critique of NBC contained in September Clues 7 is the cause.
Perhaps shielding members of the Fourth Estate is more important than shielding members of the administration. To realize the people you invite in in the morning while you sit in your dirty bathrobe are also part of a organized scheme ending in genocidal mass murder, would rankle more than removed politicians in distant Washington. I know that when this dam breaks, the surge will be tremendous.
"(The plane) was flying fast and low and the Pentagon was the obvious target," said Fred Gaskins, who was driving to his job as a national editor at USA TODAY near the Pentagon when the plane passed about 150 feet overhead. "It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any hint that anything was wrong." Bush vows retaliation for 'evil acts' 9-12-01 6:11am ET From wire and staff reports
So, what do you think the odds are a seventh USA Today employee was stuck in traffic along with his colleagues on this same stretch of highway at the exact same moment a 757 jet-plane flew over head and crashed into the Pentagon? And then, what are the odds Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis (they of CIT, the Citizen Investigative Team, and the annotators of the above aerial photograph, which I use without permission,) would just happen to miss the reference, one of only two actually published in USA Today?
On Edit: Make it Eight.Peter Kopf, director of information technology at USA TODAY, was stalled in traffic about 9:30 a.m. when the jet hit the Pentagon, creating a “huge fireball.”
“People (on the highway) were freaking out,” he said. “People were turning around and driving the opposite way getting out of their cars, talking on cell phones, crying.” When the Pentagon was struck, Kopf was listening on his car radio to reports that a second hijacked jet had been crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City. "We wanted to get the hell out of [the vicinity of the Pentagon,]" he said. "We felt a second one was imminent at the Pentagon." Bush vows retaliation for 'evil acts'
Now, what are the odds that out of seven professional journalists none of them would have had a camera along with them in the car---just in case a spot news item should present itself, you understand---leaving it to a skateboarder and a symphony orchestra manager to take the total of nine photographs taken in the opening moments of the attack?
Now, what do you think the odds are that when people find out Matt and Katie were in on it, this country will not get ripped apart? Ask
On edit: August 26. Damn. I should have remembered this one, even without having slept for two months, it is so distinctive. Always having been attributed to Mary Ann Owens, although I can't find any documentation for it, I recall it was said to have been taken with a "box" camera, which sounds plausible, or maybe they said "Brownie." In any event, I was sore to have to give up my delicious formulation about cameraless journalists.
But not so fast--my trickster higher power comes through for me once again, adding a grace note for good measure. Make that two grace notes.
That one was written by a Gannett Senior Vice President for News, Phil Currie, who said,
"Mary Ann helped calm one woman who was screaming. Her own hands shaking, she called her husband. Then she turned to her role as a journalist. "I went from car to car asking if anyone had a camera. Four cars down, a woman had a disposable camera. She asked for $20. I paid. An officer in uniform yelled for me to get back in my car. I snapped pictures of the carnage from my car as I was being directed away." Later, one of her photos from the scene moved on the wire for use in Gannett newspapers."
So technically, I was off the hook, and could stick with my construction, since she still was a journalist without a camera. But when Mary Ann was writing her own story, details shift. She says,
First I checked to see if I was bleeding. I wasn't. Then I tended an hysterical woman in the car ahead of mine.
Borrowing a mobile phone, I managed two quick calls; one to the office and one to my husband. Then I commenced a frantic search for a camera. I quickly clicked half the roll; careful not to take too many. I wanted to be ready for the arrival of a second plane, which I was sure would fall from the sky any minute.
She had to borrow both a cell phone and a camera?
Mary Ann continues,
Within a few minutes I gave up my vigil. Radio reports said the skies were clear, but another plane had just crashed into a Pennsylvania field. When security personnel ordered me off the scene, I didn't argue, I simply left.
I wasn't going on to the office. I was going home. I needed to see my husband, call my children, hear my small grandson's voice. The full impact of actually being alive overwhelmed me. A mere 125 yards had made me a witness instead of a casualty. Survival wasn't a miracle, it was luck ... pure luck.
But, in an inconsistency, her article is accompanied by a photograph attributed to her that was either taken by the Gannett Sky Cam atop the silver towers, or somebody on the 22nd floor. Details like this matter, at least they should.
But an added treat is a second in-house, organ-dispensed treasure, penned by a Gannett "News Executive" named George Benge, who titled his article, in all caps, "BENGE: PENTAGON BLAST SENT ME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND INTO THE FRAY," noting, "it was 9:45 a.m." After describing some carnage, he writes,
At 10:16 a policemen shouted for everyone to move away from the building. A man in U.S. Army fatigues barked orders to six men who were carrying a stretcher with a wounded man. He told them they would carry wounded until their muscles could take no more. Then he went back into the Pentagon.
At 10:28, a speaker from a police car told the milling throng of military personnel, civilians and police to move away, that another hijacked jet was reportedly headed toward the Pentagon.
At 10:45, when a U.S. jet fighter plane screamed overhead, everyone flinched and ducked.
At 11:25 the hundreds of rescue, military and police officials rushed away from the building, fearing new blasts.
At 11:30 they all hustled back to the scene, the peril temporarily passed.
At 11:53, another mass evacuation occurred at ground zero.
Thus Mr. Benge provides us with the most precise timeline of the morning, for which I'm grateful.
Mary Ann's London article has a dateline, 5:00pm Wednesday 11th September 2002. Still trying to get my head around that one.
Daryl Donley, the orchestra manager and amateur photographer whose early shots on 9-11 entered the Library of Congress collection, gave his hometown newspaper, The Observer-Reporter, of Greene County, Pennsylvania, an interview on July 2, 2002, where he talks about how his images were marketed. Donley said he called a friend at Gannett, and he told her his story and that he had taken some pictures.
Gannett bought his photos and made them available to 100 papers across the country. "I never saw them in print, so I have no idea who used them," Donley said. But apparently, only a single outlet in Seattle WA used only one of his images, and that was in a year-end special commemorative edition. All rather odd.
Concerning media coverage of the September 11 2001 attack on the Pentagon, the local CBS affiliate, WUSA News9, whose parent is Gannett Broadcasting, can be noted for its singular level of access at the Pentagon, the degree of focus it put on the Pentagon, an over-emotionalism in its approach that day, and a profound and glaring non-professionalism.
_____________________________________________
The Non-professionalism: News9 falsely represented that their cameraman was shooting a live video feed taken from a highway median on Washington Blvd., showing triage areas in front of the damaged Pentagon
---both implicitly---
Mike Buchanan, co-anchor (9:57am) "This is just going to be raw tape that Dave Statter is just feeding into us."
Andrea Roane, co-anchor (10:04am) "These are raw footage coming back, that’s our reporter there on the scene who will be giving us stories in just a few minutes."
---and explicitly---
Mike Buchanan: (10:16am) "All right, Dave Statter, reporting from the Pentagon. Here you can see from Dave’s camera shot several people being escorted out of the Pentagon."
In fact, military authorities, taking controlled shots of staged triage vignettes, operated this camera feed. In at least one case, at 9:58am, both Fox and CBS News9 simultaneously ran the identical live video, in which we see a single state police officer walking from left to right across the foreground, distinctively craning his neck to look up. This would have been impossible had News9 been filming and transmitting independently.
Fox, at least, was more honest, when shortly thereafter, a female announcer says, “Do we control that camera? We can pan back, oh I suppose we don’t control that camera.”
The on-scene News9 reporter, Dave Statter, implies he is reporting and interviewing from that location, using his own cameraman, "Mike," as his accompaniment and videographer.
At 9:58, Statter interviews a motorist named Michael Kelly off-screen, as the feed sends images to the studio of the Pentagon facade. Statter begins the interview by saying, “let me first describe the scene: this is the west side of the Pentagon, ah, the heliport side, off of Washington Blvd.”
At 10:05am Statter interviews two unnamed Pentagon office workers at the center median location, but a camera pans over to him for only two seconds; which he shoos away by saying, “Mike, why don’t you stay on and show the pictures over here, and I’ll talk to the eyewitnesses. You can look at what is going on--the fire-fighting efforts. We have a couple of people who were in the Pentagon at the time...tell me what happened?”
Not only would that millisecond pan not constitute a minimum “establishing” head shot, it is not even news journalism. Statter doesn’t even try and ask for names. The whole scenario was planned and executed by prior rehearsal with military authorities, to credibly establish Slatter's presence.
At 10:17am the FBI “evacuated” the highway area, and Andrea said “they are evacuating and moving back all of the news crews,” when in fact, there was only one man, from one crew, CBS News9, privileged enough to be pushed back.
News9 promoted the official narrative of an attack by an American Airlines 757, starting early, and repeating often, without sufficient sourcing, or confirmation, ignoring a conflicting report that they should have given equal weight to early on, then they dogmatically reiterated the “fact” of an American Airlines 757.
At 9:41 Mike Buchanan and Andrea Roane interrupt network coverage out of New York with reports of an explosion at the Pentagon. “We don’t know what caused this.”
At 9:42am Andrea quotes “workers report sounds and a “rumble.”
At 9:43am Andrea says “Now we are hearing the Associated Press is quoting witnesses as saying it was an aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon and that is what we are looking at from Arlington Virginia, our Gannett cam, at this huge billowing dark smoke.” (Witnesses? Plural? How FUCKING dare she!)
At 9:43am Mike: (aggravatingly) So we’ve got two planes that plowed into the world trade center in New York and now we’ve got a plane plowing into the pentagon here in Arlington!
(The Seed has been planted. Less than three minutes in, since breaking into coverage.)
At 9:46 Mike quoting the Associated Press: “He said it was a large airliner"...“I saw the tail of a large airliner, it plowed into the Pentagon,” according to an Associated Press radio reporter."
(Neither Andrea nor Mike ever mention the name of the AP reporter—Dave Winslow--the witness, not "witnesses," who sourced the first AP news alert.)
At 9:48 Andrea conducts a phone interview with a credible eyewitness, Don Chauncey, who says he saw a white, “Gulf-Stream-type” commuter jet strike the Pentagon.
At 9:50 Andrea conducts a phone interview with Dawn Vignola, whose first words out of her mouth are: “American Airlines 757.” Dawn is being prompted in the background by a friend of her roommate, Mr. Tim Timmerman, who feeds her entire soundbites, which she repeats, sometimes incorrectly. When Andrea asks her how she identified the plane as an American Airlines 757, Dawn calls Timmerman her roommate, saying "he is an airplane-person."
At 9:55am, co-anchor Mike Buchanan says, referring to Timmerman and Vignola, “Some witnesses say it appeared to be an American Airlines, 757,” while co-anchor Andrea Roan robotically repeats the mantra: “American Airlines 757.” Neither mentions the conflicting report of the white, Gulf-Stream type commuter jet.
At 9:57am, Andrea said “What observers noted, and those were in the airline industry, so we kind of take what they’re saying, for..ah...at the word--757 American Airlines--they could see the plane, they could see the markings, crashed into the west side of the Pentagon, near the heliport.”
Andrea Roane can only be referring to the man Dawn Vignola wrongly referenced in the media as her “roommate,” Tim Timmerman, who she said was an “airplane-person,” which could mean anything from aficionado or hobbiest to industry or military top gun. (He is in fact, a Naval photographer, deeply implicated within the ranks of psy-op, CoIntelPro, and Total Informational Awareness-type programs.) Timmerman has never reappeared publicly since September 11th, 2001, so his true avionic scores remain unknown. CNN featured a prominent interview with him on the afternoon of 9-11 without checking his credentials or proof of residency. This constitutes journalistic fraud of a high rank.
At 10:04am, Andrea Roane says, “An Associated Press reporter says he saw the tail end of a large airliner plunge into the Pentagon building.” (Has anyone else ever noticed a code of sexual innuendo in that quote? Did the building quiver?)
At 10:04am Andrea Roane says, “these are raw footage coming back, that’s our reporter there on the scene who will be giving us stories in just a few minutes.”
At 10:05 FOX News reporter Audrey Barnes, sets up shop several thousand yards north of News9 near the intersection of Route 110 and Washington Blvd. She has a view of the staged Pentagon mayhem, such as the diesel-fuel smoke pot, via telephoto lens. She reports that the plane may have impacted the heliport rather than the building, indicating that that last-minute meme had had broad distribution, and further indicative of a serious problem in managing the aftermath of the strike drill.
At 10:06am Statter says, “We are looking at here, I believe, I don’t have a monitor, but I believe, one of the injured being taken away by Arlington Fire and Rescue.” Does he not have a monitor because it isn’t his camera? Is he manually looking to see where the camera is aimed to infer the image transmission?
News9 worked to minimize errant or anomalous details that threatened the official narrative, such as the loud multiple secondary explosions.
At 10:09am Statter reports, “I just heard another explosion of some sort. It could be a secondary explosion of some sort, something happened but we just heard a loud pop just as you were coming to me, (convenient timing, as usual,) it seemed to be on the east of here, I can’t tell what it is, it might be something that is secondary to this because we’ve had a number of small explosions after the fire occurred.”
At 10:10am FOX News’s Audrey Barnes excitedly interrupts on-air to report, “We just heard another loud explosion!”
At 10:11am Statter sandwiches that Audrey Barnes' report with, “The reason they asked us to move back (they haven't been asked to begin moving back, so this is evidence of foreknowledge,) is because, of course, ("of course," is an example of more foreknowledge,) they are concerned about any secondary explosions. Again, I can’t tell you much more than a loud pop a few minutes ago that seemed a little bit different, a little bit different, then, then, um, um, the ones we heard earlier, which were on the outside, they could have been tires or something else.”
(As if Slatter needed help minimizing his "loud pops," perhaps from "tires," --what FOX News was calling, "another loud explosion,"--his CBS NEWS9 colleague provides some more cover:
At 10:17 News9 reporter Frank Herzog says, “I think I can answer Dave Statter's question about that secondary explosion, it wasn’t an explosion, that was the sonic boom of jet fighters that were scrambled out of Andrews Air Force base, we believe.”
(Dave Slatter didn't ask any questions; and Frank supposes two jet fighters were scrambled, but he references only one sonic boom.)
Daryl Donley says his famous fireball image wasn't of the impact, but of a secondary explosion, several minutes afterward. This is the scene that Statter does such a profound disservice to by referencing it as "tires popping;" his reporting of the multiple secondary explosions, which remain unaddressed and unexplained in the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report and the Arlington County After-Action Report, which can only be explained by combining a laundry list of multiple projectile shells fired in various trajectories, along with pre-planted, or ad hoc shaped charges to bring down a section of building in order to hide the evidence of what many people refer to as some sort of failed, or less than optimally successful exercise; with perhaps a test run of an exotic weapon or two, as seen in the anomalous behaviors of burning vehicles and patterns of window damage.
At 10:18am Andrea reinforces, "And we heard from Frank Herzog that boom that Dave thought he heard before, was, ah...air force jet scrambling high up in the sky, on alert." Confirmation bias brought to you by CBS.
At 10:18am, an NBC4 news reporter, interviewing Isabel James behind the earth mound at the Citgo gas station mentions three recent loud, unexplained booms they’ve both heard, getting James to go on record as hearing them also. James suggests "maybe gas lines exploding, I don't know," which is an awfully ambitious supposition for a passing motorist to hazard as a scenario. (So click on the link to see her further role stage managing the event--along with her Naval Command Center husband, Mike James.)
Dave Statter and News9 worked to shield details of the attack to protect the official narrative, even sacrificing possible award-winning video.
At 10:15am Mike Buchanan says, “Frank Herzog, thanks very much. Let me just read you the lead, the Associated Press lead, it just came out of New York (pause) first of all...let’s check in with Dave Statter at the Pentagon, Dave”...
...just as, at 10:15am, Dave Statter says, “Ah! Oh it collapsed right now, as you can see, I assume you’re taking our picture, I do not have a monitor, but right now we just had a middle section of the e-ring of the Pentagon collapse from the amount of fire and destruction from this, so obviously there was a great deal of damage here! It just collapsed we don’t know who was inside or how many people were inside!”
Mike Buchanan deliberately waits until the moment the dust is settling after the building collapses before going to the live feed! Statter is like, "Oops! Just missed it! Sorry!" Having "missed" the live moment, News9 never played the tape of the collapse, although it should have been an award-winning set piece, played over and over again, until seered in our memories. This is further proof the feed didn't belong to News9.
______________________________________________
The over-emotionalism of the News9 team, especially that of co-anchor Mike Buchanan served to promote fear and anxiety rather than constructively allaying it.
At 10:24am Mike Buchanan says, “Hold on one second, the State Department has been evacuated after a possible explosion or a fire, a senior governmental official speaking under a condition of anonymity said, the incident appears connected with the two plane attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to this source, quoting now, “something happened at the state department, we don’t know what yet, we hear it might have been a plane.” This...Ah...anybody! Frank or Rick or Lauren, can anybody see anything over at the State Department?” (long pause)
(Doesn't this sound completely made-up? The "something happened" is laughable.)
At 10:25am Mike Buchanan says, “Hold on...Hey Dave? (Yes.) We just got a bulletin from the Associated Press “A car bomb explodes outside of the State Department.” Being attributed to senior law enforcement officials, again, a car bomb.”
The Associated Press did issue this bogus report of a car bomb going off at the Sate Department--it was announced on several other stations too. Like the false reports of incoming planes, this report has no plausible explanation for how the mistake was made. I wonder if it was Dave Winslow again?
Dave Winslow
Andrea: "Let’s go to Frank Herzog who is outside of the State Department, Frank, what have you seen?” (long pause)
Mike: “Alright we’ll hold on for Frank.”
Andrea: Frank had been down at the area at the Washington monument….
Mike: (acting very agitated. This is Mike's big moment.) “Let me tell you if you’re just waking up, this is not a dream. This is not some B movie, you’re watching.”
Andrea: “And this is not some Tom Clancy scenario, this is the real thing.”
Mike: (Channeling Howard Beale, from the movie Network. ) “This morning about 8:45 a plane crashed into the World Trade Center in New York--18 minutes later, another plane, apparently a hijacked jet, out of Boston bound for LA, crashed into the World...you see the picture right there...that’s the second explosion, when this American Airlines jet, apparently hijacked, plowed into the World Trade Center, then about an hour ago, there was an explosion at the Pentagon, a plane plowed into the Pentagon at the heliport.”
Andrea: Look at this... (simultaneously, we see for the first time the terrifying close-up video of a tower collapsing in New York playing on screen...)
Mike: "Oh!"
Andrea: "One of the towers, we had reported, that one of the towers had collapsed, here is proof!"
Mike: (angry) "Frank Herzog, where are ya!?"
Frank: "I’m still at the Washington Monument, I’m looking at the State Department."
Mike: "Yes?"
Andrea: "What do you see?"
Frank: "Nothing has happened there. It looks all quiet."
_____________________________________________
Buchanan goes on air with an unchecked AP report that a car bomb has exploded outside the State Department, without first checking with his reporter stationed nearby who could have verified or denied the report before it aired. Instead, Buchanan blurts it out to his reporter across the river at the Pentagon! "Hey Dave," he says! Andrea Roane, has the presence to switch back to Frank Herzog at the State Department, but he has gone AWOL, so viewers are left dangling, believing the news that local car bombs are exploding--just as the first shocking video taken from the base of a tower as it is collapsing is aired on TV.
Do you really think this is mere coincidence? It is the psychological epitome of planned synthetic terror--a beautifully designed moment, superbly executed by consummately trained professionals working together both inside and outside the government in support of some unidentified master. When some psychic relief finally comes our way, with Frank Herzog's timid and mopey denial of the report of a blast at the State Department, the reassurance can't begin to stop the surge of adrenaline rushing through the viewer's manipulated bodies.
________________________________________________
Everyone connected with this CBS USA9 effort is damned for being key co-conspirators before the fact--coldly trained psy-op killers--part and parcel of our government's premeditated murder of nearly 3000 American citizens as a rational for the wrongful invasion and illegal exploitation and murder of over one million other innocents across the globe. As a terrorized citizen of the United States of America, I get down on my knees and beg the world's forgiveness for what it is my country has wrought.
In contrast, in my humble opinion, FOX News reporter Audrey Barnes, is the shape of the new American hero: genuine, and in control as emotions run hot. I felt proud of much of the FOX News, Washington, D.C. bureau on 9-11--the exceptions are glaring--a reminder perhaps, not to judge the book by its cover.
If you're looking for a textbook example of mise-en-scene, look no further. This 28-second news video clip telecast by the District of Columbia CBS affiliate, New9 on September 11, 2001. is the beau ideal of that misused term.
(I warn you, this blog is not about Daniel McAdams. He recites a 28-second-long word scheme specifically commissioned for the choreography, but that's it.)
All the video shot that day carries the personal creative vision of a single auteur--I call it Pugh source material, after the free-lance videographer who got there first--so, other than some talking heads in front of smoky backdrops, all video was governmentally sourced.
As conceived, the camera pans across parked ambulances, stopping at a gap, immediately it closes in on a group of maybe a dozen responders surrounding a single wounded casualty. For all the scores of shots of empty litter-bearer teams we see, which is a vast component of the medical-response images, it is disheartening to finally see a man in a respirator, but standing there, being held aloft by a blond giant, neither of whom has signs of any soot or sweat about them. Everyone else is to-ing and fro-ing, hither and yon in senseless blocking, Ramos keeps looking over her shoulder like she's shoplifting, while the rest of the inner circle could pass as a clump of codependents picking lint off one another at an Al anon meeting. At exactly second 26, the casualty is dipped. Fade to black.
This narrative-rich video mixes in the lineup of the local CBS station, News Channel 9, like Bill Clinton at Coretta Scott King's funeral, except more fictionalized at the Pentagon. WWASD*
Andrea: We have Daniel McAdams on the phone, he is an eyewitness, Daniel what did you see and where are you?
Daniel: I'm here in Arlington just off Columbia Pike probably about two, two-and-a-=half miles from the Pentagon, and we were sitting in our living room having coffee ah, and it sounded like a military jet fly over that they do sometimes, you know very very low altitude flyover and then just a couple of seconds later we heard a massive boom! All of our doors and windows shook. We went outside and then looked out the window and saw a plume of smoke.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Don Chauncey, a blogette if you will, on a name infrequently encountered on the lists. His witness seems credible, calling in to CBS News9 from his office near the beltway. He saw a white "Gulf Stream type" commuter jet, flying a route at a high rate of speed that ended in a "big yellow ball of fire." My only problem with him may be personal, but I find vexing any mention of "picking up speed" as it approached its target, as if anybody could distinguish speeds over 400mph, or for those close-by witnesses, changes in the pitch of jet whine, when with the Doppler effect everything would over within the microseconds the event lasted. To me it was a planted meme meant to induce maximum steroidal muscle flexing on the part of America's retaliators. As such it was one of several shibboleths. Personally, slowing down would make for a better meme, as the culprits finessed the blow.
But then for some reason (utter confusion) I wound up making a full transcript of the clip and I was amazed at a fact which literally popped out at me. (Popped isn't exactly the right word. After listening 30 or more times to, Don: (Emphatically) No, no, absolutely not! I finally just paid attention.)
Andrea: Don Chauncey, are you there?
Don: Yes I am.
Andrea: You witnessed what happened at the Pentagon. What did you see.
Don: From my office I was able to see ah A white jet, like a gulf-stream type commuter jet, I guess, just came at a high rate of speed, ah, I can see National Airport’s tower from our office, and it just increased its speed as it got closer to the Pentagon, and then I just saw the big yellow ball of fire.
Andrea: Don exactly where is your office? From where are you watching this?
Don: …ah, we’re, our, offices are off Brannon? and St. Barnabas? at the Beltway, so I overlook the Beltway from my office.
Mike: Could you tell Don, did the plane come out of National?
Don: (Emphatically) No, no, absolutely not! (Quickly) There was a, it appeared to be, a US Air commuter jet that went over the top of our building, which is a normal flight pattern, I guess for the commuters. And this looked like it was coming…from (pause) I’m guessing, coming down Columbia Pike in Arlington, down that way, and then just picked up a high rate of speed, I mean from my desk right now I can see the Pentagon, basically where the metro station is, and the buses, I can see that and to the right, but I can’t see the, I guess, the south parking area.
Mike: Right.
Andrea: Don what’s the reaction of others in your office? I mean watching the world trade center and then seeing this right, literally, in your own backyard
Don: Well myself and another coworker who sits beside me, both of us were actually on the phone looking out the window when it happened and we both dropped the phone, and we picked it back up, and said we got to go, it looks like somebody…there’s been a plane crash at either the airport or the Pentagon.
Don Chauncey speaks in my kind of emotional truth, for what it's worth. I can hear a reality that I can identify with. So when he responds to a question--one that means nothing to me--with a most emphatic opinion, what I hear is I'm missing out on something.
The story behind these interviews, how they emerged, who brought them forth, is as important to know, as pixel resolution would be in spotting doctored photographs. That is why these videos reveal so much more than context-less lists. Perhaps when this examination is finished, it will be in the cross references, or in patterns, that something conclusive will arise.
Don and Mike seem to be finishing some sort of advance briefing. The issue of a second plane is no laughing matter. That the discussion was sanitized by advanced consent seems a given after the slip--I'm just curious what Don's demons are. Otherwise we are just continuing in covert loops here and only blowback will win.
Having spent some time with Andrea and Mike I can say, I really don't like them as professionals. They display what I think Luce and Time magazine were criticized for--putting too much of themselves into the product. Regular viewers of this pair wouldn't know what to feel without Mike's sighing, and Andrea's emotional determinations. I also have a hunch they're cut in on the deal in a big way, but that's premature--I've just gotten started.
A mirror bookend to Tim Timmerman's testimony, except hers went out on local and not network television, is the account of Dawn Vignola, who along with her roommate--he is a plane person, she tells us--saw the jet impact the Pentagon from their hi-rise apartment. The first words out of her mouth are "American Airlines 757," while her "friend" can't keep his mouth shut, as he repeatedly prompts her to repeat entire catch phrases: He actually added power right by the Sheraton....It came right down Columbia Pike, low and with throttles on. Throttles on? oh, you mean full-throttle!
I wondered for a second why the guy wasn't just giving the report, but then I caught on: his name isn't on the lease. If you Google "Dawn Vignola"+Arlington, a single hit returns--her phone number and address, and I call that making it easy for 9-11-truth advocates.
Tim Timmerman said in his CNN interview that he was "about a quarter mile, maybe a little closer" to the Pentagon, but the apartment at 1600 Joyce is more like three-quarters of a mile away. Not having been down to study the lay of the land in person myself, unlike some truth advocates, I know I go out on a limb by insisting the design and layout of the apartment buildings is a telling indicator of the Pentagon's desire for maximum privacy--to what end we must attribute a motive.
That Tim's panorama was the same nickelodeon view as Dawn's could justify their similar attempts to explain away an apparent lack of damage, which must have been perceived by the perpetrators in the first hours as a failed strike. That is, the shock and awe of a 757 had better leave suitable Sturm und drang of damage.
In an effort not to succumb to the other side's heavy-handed tactics, I'll only allude with a subtle tap on the gentle reader's shoulder, by quoting Dawn's last observation,
"This was right, aimed right at it. But unfortunately I think it hit the heliport,and it didn’t look like it damaged too much of the Pentagon"
This was followed by her prompter's (Tim Timmerman's) correction: "Fortunately."
Andrea: We have Dawn on the phone now who is another witness to what happened at the Pentagon, Dawn, can you hear us? Dawn? Dawn: Hello? Andrea:Yes Dawn, this is Andrea in the newsroom with Mike Buchanan. What did you see? Dawn: I saw the, it was an American Airlines 757 and it came in and hit the side, it hit the heliport…(coached)…came down Columbia Pike and hit the heliport, next to the Pentagon I live in an apartment building on that side of the Pentagon and it just crashed right into it, I don’t know if it damaged the side of the Pentagon, it doesn’t look that badly damaged but I know it hit at least the heliport on the side of the Pentagon. Andrea: You stated it was a 7…. Dawn: (Interrupting) American Airlines.. Andrea: …57…how could you tell? How could you tell? Could you see that? Dawn: Yes, I could see it…un huh…(Coached) And my roommate is an airplane person and he saw it to, I mean, we saw the whole thing. Andrea: OK Mike: It didn’t come, come out of National? It came out from the west? Dawn: No it didn’t, (coached) It came right down Columbia Pike, low and with throttles on. Mike: With like, the...full throttle? Dawn: Ya... (with coaching overlapping) He actually added power right by the Sheraton. Andrea: And that’s what we heard from Don as well, he added power and went straight for the Pentagon, so this was no accident. Dawn: No, No. Andrea: It was deliberate Dawn: This was right, aimed right at it. But unfortunately I think it hit the heliport,and it didn’t look like it damaged too much of the Pentagon Andrea: Alright Dawn, thank you very much for calling us with that. Mike: Andrea, ya…listen, thank you very, very much.
I'm getting tired of Andrea and Mike. All their sighing and clucking is getting on my nerves. I wish they'd stop the case-building on motive and intent, it implicates every testimony that states the plane revved up its power and speed as it neared the building. From what? From 415 to 523 miles per hour? How much can the pitch of a whine vary in a few seconds given the Doppler effect?
With later research it turns out Dawn's prompter was Tim Timmerman, who gave his own interview on CNN. Compare his more composed version with Dawn's.
Lauren Ashburn is a USA Today reporter who makes her first appearance of the day--well, she telephones in an "eyewitness" report from the 18th floor of the USAToday building, to the local CBS affiliate in D.C. News9. (They each get a nickel every time they say USAToday.)
Andrea: Lauren are you there? Lauren, Lauren Ashburn from USAToday, can you hear us? Lauren: Yes I can Andrea. Andrea: We understand you witnessed what happened at the Pentagon? Lauren: Yes I did. We’re sitting in the USAToday Towers, 1000 Wilson Blvd, and as we were getting ready to record…ah, we watched what appeared to be a huge explosion over the top of the Pentagon. At that point we were immediately told to evacuate the USAToday Towers. As many people know, they are very tall towers that overlook Washington, called Silver Towers, and the picture you’re seeing right now is actually taken from a camera that is on top of the USAToday building. Male Announcer: We are getting a report Lauren, see if you can confirm this, an Associated Press reporter saw the tail end of a large airliner plunge into the Pentagon. Could you tell what type of aircraft? Lauren: We could not tell what kind of aircraft it was, the only thing we could see was a huge cloud of smoke and what looked like some flames at the onset of that, we couldn't see, I…I don’t know if you can hear right now but, but emergency trucks, I’ve seen about twenty, twenty-five of them screaming down Route 110 here in front of the USAToday headquarters. Andrea: Lauren, where are you right now? Lauren: I am on the 18th floor of tower one of USAToday headquarters building looking out onto the Potomac river. Andrea: And you say that they have evacuated from upper floors or they’re trying to evacuate everybody in the USAToday building? Lauren: At this point they are evacuating everybody in the USAToday building in both towers, both Gannett Broadcasting and USAToday.
Ashburn is clever enough to leave room for plausible deniablity. After answering yes, she'd been a witness "to what happened," she says that "we watched what appeared to be a huge explosion." Either it was a huge explosion or it wasn't, you either saw it, or you didn't. She immediately digresses, moving on to describe what happened next, a call to evacuate, as well as providing some thoughtful background on the building she was in.
The male announcer, Mike, asks her, "We are getting a report Lauren,see if you can confirm this, an Associated Press reporter saw the tail end of a large airliner plunge into the Pentagon." Mike's voice drops an octave, "Could you tell what type of aircraft?"
Is this the first public mention by the News9 team that possibly an aircraft struck the building? Instead of asking what "type of aircraft," shouldn't they first ask if she'd seen aircraft at all? Why does Ashburn now answer the first question with lawyerly precision, "the only thing we could see was a huge cloud of smoke," appending a "and what looked like some flames at the onset." At the onset of what? An explosion, a huge cloud of smoke, or the advent of an airliner, tail end or whole? And what is flame commonly mistaken for again?
Ashburn starts to say what she didn't see, which is of some use in establishing the parameters of truth, but shifts instead into another off-topic digression. The female announcer, Andrea, must sense a need, for she throws her a life-ring by asking a question already answered: "Where are you?"
"At this point they are evacuating everybody in the USAToday building, " Ashburn replies, sitting there.
So it is odd to find Lauren still in the building later, televising an interview with an eyewitness. Odder still, this interview goes out on the same CBS station, but with a different, less-descript “Live 9” emblem in lower left corner, and without a word from her about any special status or relationship between their organizations. Oddest of all, she is interviewing an USAToday colleague, his story heavy with explicate details of official narrative, also without a word of explanation from her. She interviews Sucherman a second time that afternoon.
Lauren: Well, good morning Andrea, right now with me is Joel Sucherman. He was on his way into work, I believe, when he saw an American Airlines jet crash into the Pentagon. Joel tell me what you saw. Joel: Well, traffic was very heavy this morning so, ah, it was bumper to bumper, we were all stopped, I was probably about 100 yards from the Pentagon, when I heard this screaming sonic boom, and saw the jet come screaming across the highway, it was an American Airlines jet, silver, with the markings along the windows, and ah…ah…within seconds it hit the side of the Pentagon. My first thought was my God it’s coming in so low for a landing at National, but it screamed across Route 110, and hit the west side of the Pentagon, ah…immediately there were flames that shot up, higher flames, white smoke and then within seconds, thick black smoke. Andrea:…we are interrupting Lauren Ashburn to go to Gordon Peterson live near the Pentagon...
I'll check and find out what it was that was so earth-shatteringly important for Gordon Parks to report on, that it warranted an interruption, putting to a close an 107-word answer to a 37-word question, and calling it journalism, even though it's left as the central unanswered question six years later.
Later that day, Sucherman interview #2, also going out on a Live9 CBS feed.
Lauren: One person was on his way to work here at USAToday headquarters, he’s Joel Sucherman. Joel, tell us what you saw. Joel: Well we were stuck in traffic, nobody was moving much and we heard a sonic boom all of a sudden we saw a jet, what appeared to be an American Airlines passenger jet, come screaming just a few feet above the highway, which runs to the west side of the Pentagon it ah ,with a second or so, it slammed into the west side of the Pentagon, there was an explosion, flames shot up, there was white smoke and then within seconds it was thick black smoke surrounding the area. Lauren: How were you sure this was an American Airlines jet, what, what did you see? Joel: I saw a plane, a jet, with silver…ah…it was painted silver, and there were markings along the window, which ah, reminded me of an American Airlines. Lauren: Are they red and blue? Joel: That’s correct, they were red and blue. Lauren: And what happened on the ground at that point, did you stop and get out of your car, what happened? Joel: Well, everybody, ah, sort of stopped, there were a lot of people who did get out of their cars, I did not, ah, you know, we were…I was just worried there would be a another impact seconds later and without being able to maneuver away from the scene, another impact could have shot flames, and we all would have been toast.
Thank goodness Lauren prepared because Joel did not. Do you think Joel worried that Lauren was feeding him a trick question by prompting him with "red and blue?" And without being able to maneuver away from the scene, wouldn't the logic of Joel's staying inside his vehicle, left him roast instead of toast?
Six USAToday employees had front-row seats to witness the airliners crash into the building. Many other employees of Gannett, the owner of USAToday, also were eyewitnesses.
Illustration source: The Citizens Investigation Team
This official release taken by Sgt. Carmen Burgess in the first moments after the attack, before fire engines and other responders arrived, has a view pointed toward where the six non-carpooling USAToday employees are--up the incline of an overpass. I'm sorry things are so tense and stressful out of sight of the carnage. Down here, we see three men in the background , out in the road, leaning on a car, and shooting the breeze. Traffic is jammed too.
On edit: May 7, 2008 It's time for a total redo of the Mr. Tim Timmerman blog from August 14th 2007. Much has changed since then and it was not very good to begin with. And since "Tim Timmerman" is a big name in Pentagon-eyewitness Google searches, and since, I must say, Google loves me, here is a chance perhaps to make an impact on visitor's thinking.
Because by combining his story with that of Dawn Vignola's, in whose apartment the two co-eyewitnessed the attack, Timmerman, who we now know, was the anonymous male voice--"the airplane person"--talking excitedly in the background during Ms. Vignola's telephone call into the local CBS news affiliate, whose newscasters, Andrea Roane and Mike Buchanan, hosted the local morning news show, and played the call live on air, and then made the announcement that a 757 American Airlines passenger jet had crashed into the Pentagon, after mentioning only a single supporting report, four minutes earlier, from an unnamed Associated Press reporter, who said he saw, "the tail of a large jetliner crash into the Pentagon," although only two minutes prior, Roane and Buchanan had taken a contradictory report live, on-air from Don Chauncey, who said that "he saw a white Gulf-Stream-type commuter jet strike the Pentagon," you then will have the story of a sequence that lasted only 14 minutes and went a long way toward the sanctioning of an official truth.
Lets begin with the term "co-eyewitness," for it perfectly describes what two unrelated people, not living together, do when they simultaneously stand looking out the same 16th-floor window in a domestic apartment at 9:38am on a weekday morning, while seeing and comprehending without disagreement a shocking event occurring at over 500 miles per hour.
I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building.
And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.
Of course, what destroys his credibility--and CNN's too, I might add--is his referring to his vantage point as being "his" apartment, from which he hears jet noise "all the time." How could the network not verify the contact information of such a news source? Franken begins the interview by saying, "You are a pilot. Tell us what you saw." Did CNN vouchsafe that credential?
It doesn't help that he misrepresented his distance from the Pentagon, saying "I am up about a quarter a mile -- it may be a little bit closer," when Dawn Vignola's apartment at 1600 S. Joyce, is three-quarters of a mile away. To Mr. Timmerman, something can be both, "It was so close to me it was like looking out my window and looking at a helicopter. It was just right there," and, "That might have happened behind the apartments that occluded my view."
Now look carefully at this statement: "the building didn't look very damaged initially."
Compare it with this statement: "I felt it didn't look as damaged as it could be."
What does Timmerman think comes subsequent to a plane crash? Did he have a preconceived idea about what the damage was going to look like? OK, lets look at these two statements again, but in their contexts.
"the building didn't look very damaged initially, but I do see now, looking out my window, there's quite a chunk in it."
Ignoring for the moment that it is not his window to begin with, what happened between "initially...but I do see now?"
Then Bob Franken makes a statement: "This is a five-sided building." To which Timmerman responds
"As you know, the rings are A, B, C, D, E. It is just across the E ring on the outside, and that's why I felt it didn't look as damaged as it could be. It looked like on the helipad, which is on that side."
Why isn't Timmerman simply reporting that he saw a plane crash wherever it crashed, without placing a value judgments on the result? When he says,
"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."
We can respond that it didn't hit the heliport, it didn't hit the ground, there is no physical evidence for either of those things; the nose didn't break up and the wings didn't fly forward--that kind of plane debris was not found outside of the Pentagon. Such a thing wasn't seen in the five video frames.
Although his co-eyewitness does say she saw something similar. Mr. Timmerman's motivations and dominations as he prompted Dawn Vignola in her phone conversation with Andrea Roane can be clearly judged for what it is, but I just want to direct your attention to the last word out of Timmerman's mouth as the call ended. After Ms. Vignola says
"This was right, aimed right at it. But unfortunately, I think it hit the heliport, and it didn’t look like it damaged too much of the Pentagon."
Mr. Timmerman corrects her softly with, "fortunately."
Give 41 seconds to this CNN newsclip telecast on September 12, 2001. CNN's resident terrorism expert is explaining al Qaeda, the terrorism network to rival the CNN network. He tells us that false names and anonymous mailbox addresses are commonly used by terrorists. However, it should be obvious that within the terrorism subspecialty of suicidal ideologues, to use a pseudonym for an identity is to masquerade a belief--the original intent requires maximum advertising to get a sincere message out. Homicidal Palestinian bombers in Israel do not seek anonymity--circumstances may require it, but it is never chosen.
Since the actors of the September 11th drama entered and were in this country legally, and had done nothing illegal in the interim to draw the attention of authorities, any possible motivation is obviated--unless of course, they were supposedly shy.
In a marvelous bit of business--if only Stanislavsky were alive to witness it--to illustrate "the al Queda terrorism manual," he holds up a sheaf of papers, but not before distractedly placing a coversheet on top, just in case an errant camera shot should catch a glimpse of it, before allowing his fellow newscaster to see a top corner he peels back. Just the sort of detail a junior spy would learn first and engrain and a wanna-be would copy cat!
His co-host interrupts him, asking for background on the leadership of al Qaeda. He begins his answer, but when he gets to the operative name, a quite clearly recognizable sound comes out of his mouth. This stops him dead cold, perhaps because he stumbled first by inverting a name. He corrects himself by saying Osama bin Laden, the bugaboo we have become so familiar with. I won't spoil the fun by saying another word. http://dailymotion.alice.it/video/x1g938_cnn-9122001-what-is-al-qaeda_news
Because we’ve got some serious problems here gang. I ain't fooling!
I had no desire to debunk this testimony. It unequivocally supported my bias for a small commuter jet being the honest, if sometimes confused, eyewitnesses, leaving the 757 American Airlines eyewitnesses as the log-throwing liars. But now it would appear we have double strands of black op dis-info working at parallel cross purpose.
Below is a transcript of an interview ABC’s Peter Jennings conducted over the telephone with a man named Don Wright, very early in the day on 9-11 (exact time under research) Read the transcript first please:
ABC’s Peter Jennings: OK, then let me go quickly to someone named Don Wright, who saw the plane crash into the Pentagon. Don are you there in Washington??
Wright: Yes I am.
Jennings:Can you tell us what happened?
Wright: Yes, it was about 9:35 and I was looking out our 12th floor windows at 1600 WilsonBlvd in Roslyn VA, and I watched this...it looked like a commuter plane, two engine, come down from the south, real low and proceed right on and crashed right into the Pentagon.
Jennings: Went directly into the Pentagon?
Wright: That is correct.
Jennings: Looked like a deliberate act?
Wright: A deliberate act, sir.
Jennings: And can you tell me what direction it came from Don?
Wright:It came from the south.
Jennings:It came from the south. Up along the river, or across the land?
Wright:(pause) It came…it came from the south.
Jennings: (pause) OK. Did you happen to look at your watch? We thought it was just a little bit before ten o’clock.
Wright:(Quickly) Well I was watching ABC news, watching the twin tower (slows down)…ah… and about...(long pause)...(then very quickly) and about that time I saw the plane, I watched it come in real low over the trees, and it just dipped down, and came down over 395 straight into the Pentagon.
Jennings: And are you fairly sure that it was what we commonly recognize as a ‘commuter plane?’
Wright: Yes it was.
Jennings: Thank you very much.
Now listen to the video. There are some very strange things going on here. First, when Wright answers that the plane came from the south, and Jennings asks a follows up,“It came from the south. Up along the river, or across the land?” It leaves Wright speechless, only able to reassert his original line. This can mean only one thing: that he hadn’t seen a plane in the context he claimed, he was just repeating a line, and apparently he didn’t even have a general understanding of the lay of the land. So he had no way of knowing if the question was a setup, and wisely shutup.
And it happens a second time, when Jennings offhandedly brings up the issue of the timing of the plane attack (apparently having forgotten Wright had mentioned it at the start.) Nothing could be more momentous and singular than the exact moment a 757 airplane crashes into a solid masonry fortress, but in the early hours after the attack, we have credible time stamps placed on the event by the networks running from CNN’s Bob Franken’s “9:20” to ABC’s Peter Jennings' “just before 10am” How is this possible people? Bombs and missiles can come in multiples, but not 757’s. Not here at least.
But when Jennings asks him if he happened to look at his watch, Wright is glad for the opportunity to move on from the previous fiasco and quickly launches into a story, not recognizing a new danger, but somebody is advising him over his shoulder and as he stumbles, slows down, repeats a word, then a very long pause, as somebody feeds him exactly what to say, he restarts in a fast declaration completely avoiding the question in the process. Hello?
Next, I wanted to see things from his viewpoint, so I Google mapped 1600 Wilson Blvd, Roslyn VA.
But with Google satellite, 1600 Wilson doesn't look 12 stories tall. It don't believe it can half that. And between 1600 and the Pentagon there appear to be some other buildings blocking the sight lines, and shouldn't properly from this perspective it be said, the plane was coming from the west? .
The problem now is that while the number of testimonies asserting a small commuter plane is growing, at the same time many more of the 757 testimonies are being exposed as fraudulent, enough so that a logical argument that the official story is based on a pack of lies could be won, we now are on much shiftier sand.
Let's continue with the work. And God Bless each and everyone!
The following 5 minute FOX studio interview with Aziz ElHallan, which aired live at 4:39 on the afternoon of September 11th, 2001, surely was never broadcast again. It is perhaps the most important and damning of all the eyewitness interview videos. Google his name in quotation marks and only three hits return, and since Afework Hagos returns 1000 that is proof of suppression. And corruption. But those come from within the ranks of the 9-11 truth movement, advocates who go on endlessly rehashing the most inane details of this or that, while sitting quietly on powerful evidence such as this.
It takes an oleaginous and fidgety Arab, Americanized in all the wrong ways, teamed up with the master's of media manipulation, the Fox Network, to finally reveal the truth of Arlington: that these people are profoundly stupid; moreover their hubris blinds them to how poor an effort they put in. It wasn't a part of the plan to wind up here, six failed years later, with a failed war, but the failed Constitution was planned. Everything failed for the same reason: the motivations were bad and ego led them to under perform. Noam Chomsky can't grasp 9-11 skepticism because to do so would mean America's leaders are insane. Did he stop to think they could be dumb?
It is clear now, to me at least, who is who. The staged exchange in the Fox studio, where ElHallal brings a piece of aircraft skin, which he says landed near his car, as show and tell, or show and smirk actually. Like Rumsfeld's mounting of a piece as a coffee-table sculpture, or Elgass's making a museum donation out of a piece. If a plane didn't crash at the Pentagon, where did they get the pieces of airplane from?
We can see in the first moments of the interview, when ElHallal can't get the intended word out of his mouth, eight instead of nine, south instead of north, that his demons are so near the surface. Than note the emotional falsity and the planned and coordinated bits. The equilibrium is kept but it belongs on another planet. We need an exorcism here, not an investigation.
That they thought an apparent Muslim would be useful for this says everything about the kind of operation they had.
Some of the eyewitnesses are lying and some are telling the truth. You must decide for yourself who is who, and these videos are a great source of information.
One of my most powerful emotional memories from 9-11 has to do with a studio interview. After escaping the towers, a young guy had walked all the way uptown to his sister's apartment in the West 60's and rang the bell. She was dumbfounded with joy, but since she was a producer at ABC, she rushed him over to the studios around the block and had him on live before noon. Now I may have redacted some memories in here, but my recollection is the guy had taken pictures on his way down the staircase, including the famous image of a fireman in full gear walking against the crowd, with his face turned upward, expressing many things to the camera. Blessedly, that fireman survived, if I'm not mistaken, but that wasn't known then, and you could see the exact moment when the survivor put two and two together in his mind, the fireman whose duty it is to enter burning buildings, walking up the stairs, and the buildings falling down, and the guy just burst into tears and sobbed. You don't get to witness emotional reality like that very often, especially on TV, especially when the tears are for somebody else.
The comparison between the two leaves me feeling shaken.
Over at the Pilots For Truth Forum, an Italian with a Japanese name, Ashoka, has created a thread calledPentagon Eyewitnesses (Pages 1 2 3 ) where he posts his work--film clips he extracts out from the unedited tapes of the September 11, 2001 telecasts of the various network and news channels, an indispensable resource found over in the Internet Archives. He creates individual clips of the various interviews of eyewitnesses to the attacks, to be found on five of the most beautifully organized pages I think I shall ever see, which brings the truth that much more into focus. But listening to them in their newly ordered guise will make our matters of judgment even more clear.
Asoka's home turf is an Italian news community http://www.luogocomune.net that has a special focus on 9-11. I'm surprised to find his archive apparently lying fallow since spring, after the enormous effort he expended assembling it. But digging in I realized how revelatory it was to experience these testimonies, coming in as they did in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Viewed in their original context of media manipulation, with eyes opened wide by the six descending years that have followed, the connivance of the media in Arlington in the conspiracy of 9-11 couldn't be more apparent.
We can tell each other apart now, can't we?
Aiming to go in a rough chronological order, the first interview is special--to me at least, in that she triggered my cracked sixth sense, and it's been awhile.
This NBC4 clip is timestamped 10:18am. The interview occurs at the Citgo gas station, which became the media center, so already some forethought, if not foreknowledge seems evident. James says she was traveling down Columbia Pike when the plane flew directly overhead, which would leave her conveniently pre-positioned. Columbia Pike and intersecting Joyce St. would be the only way for journalists to get even marginally close to west side of the Pentagon. Several references to journalists getting arrested when they got too pushy are in these tapes. James references a tree line obscuring her view bit, and there is only one to be seen on
It is doubtful she could have seen the plane actually impacting the building, but she could surely deduce it. How she got so emphatic about the pilot's motive and intent is another matter.
In the clip's first seconds, as the reporter is asking the question, James' has a faint smile on her face as if rising to meet a challenge. This would indicate she's an operative at work and she delights in lying. The reporter, who mentions that they both had been there for awhile already, still hasn't warmed to her story. James doesn't trip up anywhere in her syntax or logic, or breathing, but her unpleasant accent leaves a lot of room to hide behind.
The instant I saw her I thought she was the same women seen here in this picture--a high-level manager shown giving directions to her troupes during a scene change later in the morning.
ON edit: It's interesting that Aldo Marquise of the CIT came to the same conclusion on September 6, 2007, adding, in that inimitable insider-CIT style, the information that Isabel James is married to Mike, a navy info center employee. The following photo has long intrigued me. A half dozen uniformed service members are digging intently in the unsightly mound of earth sitting in the middle of the cloverleaf. Standing over them is a women dressed similarly in shorts and tee shirt. As much as I'd like to make a positive ID the women are the same, I can't, the color of the tee shirt is too off. She could have changed, but then again, maybe she has a sister.
The way in which this account Pentagon CNN eyewitness Barbara emerges, and the underlying disrespect, both to Barbara and journalism, of an inadequate identification, makes this interviewee start off as suspect and she goes downhill fast. Newsman Dave--last name-- Ensor puffs her credibility at the beginning, using "exactly" three times, but he rapidly losses air. "What did you think was happening?" he asks. No, really. (unidentified, wife of a friend of CNN Newsman Dave Ensor) Aaron Brown introduces: "David where in the Capital are you now?" Dave: Well, Aaron, I'm in our bureau but I am on the telephone with 'Barbara' who is the wife of a 'friend' of mine, and who is an eyewitness to exactly what happened at the Pentagon. Barbara can you hear me alright? Yes, I can hear you. Well, what exactly did you see, let's look at the Pentagon now as you describe what exactly happened at the Pentagon this morning. As we were driving into town on 395 there was an exit, we were trying to get off the exit for the Memorial Bridge, and off to the left hand side was a commercial plane that came in and it was coming in too fast, and too low, and the next thing that we saw was it go down below the side of the road and we just saw the fire that came up after that. How large was the explosion? It was large! Was there sound as well? Ah...that I can't verify because the windows were up in the vehicle. But was it clear to you what had happened? Yes, definitely. So you believe it was a commercial airliner that was hitting the Pentagon? Yes, and I'm not sure exactly where the Pentagon, where it was in relationship to where the plane went down, but they are relatively close to one another, whether it hit any part of that Pentagon I'm not sure.
How low was the plane? When it was coming down? Ah....ya, it was coming down on less than a 45 degree angle, and coming down toward the side of the...395. And when it came down it just missed 395 and it went down below it and you could just see the fire come up from it. Were you able to see what kind of plane or what airline it belonged to? No, I did not see what kind of airline, I just assumed because we were so close to the airport that it was just coming in to land. But it seemed awfully low to you? Yes, and fast. How big was the fireball? Umm, I'm spatially challenged at times, and it was pretty big. What did you think was happening? I know that that hit the ground and exploded. Were you frightened yourself?
Barbara almost loses it with an unexpected question about sound, won't go on record as to the size of the fireball, or the plane, and she does lose it when asked the trick math question: "How low was the plane?" But she buys time by asking a question of her own back, "When it was coming down?" Yes dear. She says "less than a 45 degree angle." Wrong dear.
CBS News9 Omar Campos A Spanish speaker, Campos has a friend translating for him whose English is actually worse, but they get across the message "not too big...like a business airplane," and that it was "white on the top, blue color downstairs," meaning underneath. The newscaster Gordon mentions they'd said a 15-20 seat jet before, but the men don't repeat that on air. Gordon asks specifically if it was an American Airlines jet and Campos counters with a clear "United" although his friend mistranslates that into "a United States airplane." But all this talk of a small commuter plane appears to motivate a second newsman to jump in to try and quash the effect it may be having on listeners. He asserts there are conflicting reports, and some "military men" (i.e. read: white men) are saying it was a large plane, like a 757. So obvious!
But Omar Campos is even more fun, because he has always appeared on the witness lists, but as in support of the official Flight 77 American Airlines commercial Boeing jet story. It seems the London Guardian made the mistake, although it sounds more like Diebold. And nobody cross referenced until now. Look, he's done his ESL homework too:
"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head.
It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane," Mr Campo said. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here." The Guardian, Sep. 12, 2001(Please note the word screaming, it will appear again shortly)
"Do we have an eyewitness? Yes, Heather Cabot is bringing one over. We have an eyewitness I think, to what happened here at the Pentagon, if you have a moment. Can you tell me what you saw and where you were." "We were on Columbia Pike, where the shelter is...and I looked out the window and I saw the tail end go." What size plane? "For me it was a big size plane, definitely a passenger plane...everything shook and then a big explosion and then somebody said My God, they hit the Pentagon, they hit the Pentagon."
The "for me" formulation would indicate that a debate rages--pick your side and be prepared to defend it. This fellow is sincere, send back the tumbrel. Heather Cabot appears to have been the procurer for several of the News9 interviews. More on her coming up later.
"We now know a plane, which is believed to be a jumbo jet has crashed into the Pentagon, it left a hole, it has collapsed that side of the building. The tragedy of course is that around 9:20 this morning Eastern time a plane crashed into the west side of the Pentagon."
Franken gets with the program, but he sticks with a 9:20am time of arrival, which is 18 minutes ahead of the official time, and ten minutes ahead of a big pack clump around "about 9:30." Franken had an office in the building. That he remains intransigent still (this is at about 1:30 in the afternoon, I believe) means he knows something and is unwilling to give it up.
"I was just casually looking out my window and out of the corner of my eye I saw what looked to be a 20-passenger corporate jet. no markings on the side, coming in at a shallow angle like it was landing right into the side of the Pentagon, then a huge fireball, about perhaps five times the height of the Pentagon, and I was on the fifth floor so we just automatically ran down went to the stairs and ran down the fire escape." "You were where, in the Pentagon?" "No, I was across 395 from the Pentagon, in an office tower, but with a direct view of the Pentagon. "Describe the trajectory, the plane was aimed straight at the building?" "It flew right into the Pentagon and almost immediately a huge fireball."
I hate to say this, because he supports my pet theory, but this guy sounds incredibly over-rehearsed to my ear. What do others think? On edit: Aug. 22 On second thought, he sounds just right.
