did flight 77 strike the pentagon?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the second example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The press association reported

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Timmerman, are you with us right now?

TIM TIMMERMAN, EYEWITNESS: I sure am.

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

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

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

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

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

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

FRANKEN: 757, which, of course...

TIMMERMAN: American Airlines.

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

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

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

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

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

FRANKEN: So there was a fireball that you saw?

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

FRANKEN: What did you see after that?

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

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

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

FRANKEN: This is a five-sided building.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This account is impossible to believe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)