Another look at American Airlines Flight 77 and the Pentagon

[jschurchin]

I must admit that when I first started to look at the events of 9-11 critically I made a lot of mistakes, still do!

I had a tendency to listen, and agree with, people who had produced films without doing any of the legwork to verify if their accusations were correct.

I recently read an essay by Jim Hoffman that takes a critical look at the theory of no plane crashing into the Pentagon. It is here: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html

In it Mr. Hoffman lays out some very interesting points, but the thing that got me, and made me realize I had made a gross error in developing my opinion was, the reports of the eyewitnesses.
Now I am not a big fan of eyewitness testimony, I believe it to be unreliable. But, to a person anyone who saw what hit the pentagon
describe the same thing, an Airplane.

Now from studying the JFK assassination one thing that I have learned is, if a group of people all describe the same thing there are two options, 1) They are all lying, I don't want to say impossible, but not very likely. 2) They are telling the truth, as they witnessed it.

A good list of eyewitness reports can be found at: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

Now I still have a hard time with the debris Field in the available photographs coming from a aircraft as large as a 757 but, if it is not from AA 77. Where did AA 77 go?

Lastly, my sincere apologizes to, Hack 89, Kevin Fenton and Lared. Sometimes my emotions get in the way of my brain.

[mirandapriestly]

1. Don't you think It's odd that two of the witnesses

(Richard Benedetto (a RIGHT WING columnist) and Steve Anderson) worked for USA Today? I mean DC/ Arlington is a big area and two of the more specific accounts happen to be from USA Today employees? Plus, Steve Anderson and the next witness on the list are a good few miles away, across the cemetery.
I get your point, but I'm sure the culprits would have thought of getting "witnesses" so it's not THAT much of a case for a plane, PLUS a lot of the witness comments don't really say it was a plane AND there were people who said it sounded like a missile, etc...

a Richard Benedetto Column
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2004-07-18-benedetto_x.htm

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

[dchill]

2. Gee, you wouldn't think from the Benedetto column...

that he'd ever intentionally misrepresent any facts. :sarcasm: This guy is a seething Bushman - ready to jump at the first hint that there might be something he can do for his glorious leader.

"Then the plane flew right over my head. I said to myself, boy, that plane is going awfully fast. That plane is going to crash .... The noise was like an artillery shell, not an explosion like a bomb"

OOH! that pwane is going awfuwwy fast!

"Lost in the cheering over the John Edwards pick and the cacophony following President Bush's refusal to speak at the NAACP convention this past week were reports that Bush might have been right after all when he said that Iraq had sought uranium for nuclear weapons."

OOPS! Wrong again, Benno. This line was being pushed by the conservative media until that story, too, was debunked.

It took him eight months to add "I didn't actually see the impact..." Oh, never mind.

I noticed erstwhile presidential pancake-flipper tripper candidate Gary Bauer on that witless list, too. ;)

Nice catch.

[sabbat hunter]

6. how many of the eyewitnesses

actually know what a missile even sounds like?

[rman]

3. Eyewitness reports re pentagon are conflicting

Some report hearing a high pitch engine sound like that of a missile or fighter jet.


http://killtown.911review.org/oddities/911.html

• 9/11 - Witnesses at the Pentagon report that the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon sounded and/or behaved like a missile.

► Richard Benedetto, USA TODAY reporter
"...saw the plane slam into the Pentagon. "It sounded like an artillery shell. It hit on the west side of the building, near the helipad." - USA Today, 'I fear for my daughter' (09/11/01)

► Michael DiPaula, 41, project coordinator Pentagon Renovation Team
"Suddenly, an airplane roared into view, nearly shearing the roof off the trailer before slamming into the E ring. 'It sounded like a missile,' DiPaula recalls." - Baltimore Sun

► Lon Rains, Editor at Space News
"With the Pentagon to the left of my van at about 10 o’clock on the dial of a clock, I glanced at my watch to see if I was going to be late for my appointment.
At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball.
I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane. Friends and colleagues have asked me if I felt a shock wave and I honestly do not know." - Space News, Eyewitness: The Pentagon (06/30/05)

► Tom Seibert, 33, Pentagon network engineer
""We heard what sounded like a missile, then we heard a loud boom," said Tom Seibert, 33, a network engineer at the Pentagon. "We were sitting there and watching this thing from New York, and I said, you know, the next best target would be us. And five minutes later, boom."" - Guardian, 'Everyone was screaming, crying, running. It's like a war zone' (09/12/01)

[jschurchin]

4. If you all go back and.....

read your post's, you will see what I mean when I say eyewitness testimony is unreliable.

All of these people are telling the truth as to what they saw, admittedly some may be tainted, but if you ask them straight forward is this what you remember, the answer will be yes.

We all process information differently, especially in times of great stress or shock. I am very leary of statements like "oh it was DEFINITELY an American Airlines 757", these just don't ring true when a majority of people saw an AIRPLANE. An airplane could be just about any aircraft.

Thanks for your input and comments, I believe we all are searching for the same thing, the TRUTH.

[Kevin Fenton]

5. Why are you apologising to me?

You haven't done anything to me yet.

I would ignore the eyewitnesses, although most of them are consistent with an American Airlines Boeing 757 hitting the building, none of them mention the tail number or can identify the passengers. However, a died-in-the-wool CTer subsequently entered the wrecked building and ID'd the plane wreckage.

Could I just point out that:
(1) The plane hit at the join of the renovated (Wedge 1) and unrenovated (Wedge 2) sections, not in the middle of the renovated section, as is usually claimed;
(2) The place the plane hit was about half-full, not nearly empty, as is usually claimed - the idea a 757 would have killed 2,000 people if the building were full is just loony;
(3) Two objects on the lawn (generator and utility vault retaining wall) sustained damage highly consistent with being hit by a Boeing 757's engines;
(4) The mark the right wing made in the wall is bleeding obvious and the tail also caused visible damage to the facade;
(5) Items clearly belonging to the passengers and hijackers were recovered.

Missile people, if the aircraft were a missile, why would it circle the Pentagon first and copy the flight path of planes arriving at Ronald Reagan National Airport?

[jschurchin]

7. First off.....

here is the reason I apologized: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=67767&mesg_id=67977

I don't know why but, I remember when I insult people, not very civil of me, agreed?

Second, there was a time when I thought something other than a plane hit the building, missile, rocket, drone, etc. I have since revised my thought process to include all eyewitness reports, not just the ones that fit my preconceived notion.

We all have the notion to go, I believe you, because you are saying what I believe happened, while what you saw I do not believe, therefore I discount your report. Credibility becomes the issue, I, for one, have a tendency to believe people, until they have been proven blatantly false whereby they lose their credibility.

As it stands right now a majority of the witnesses saw a plane, some witnesses saw something else, until the FBI releases the footage from the cameras around the Pentagon we will not know for sure, and trying to reconcile the available evidence is frustrating, to say the least.

[Kevin Fenton]

8. Oh, I see

I hadn't read that - I went on holiday after posting the post to which it is a reply. Very good of you to apologise.

Can I just point out that the no-757 argument has been abandoned by both Jim Hoffman and DRG, plus a very few other people who come on here (self included). AFAIK nobody in the "9/11 truth movement" has publicly repudiated the idea that the twin towers were destroyed with explosives - maybe that's because it's a much better argument.

[jschurchin]

10. I agree with the WTC theory's.

As you can tell by my number of post's I am new to this and am just beginning to look at what happened on 9-11 with a critical eye.

Being new I have been looking at all the information I can find, some of which is, for lack of a better description, out in left field. Trying to wade through the excrement to find reliable information is at times, difficult.

I really do enjoy the exchange of ideas and facts, hopefully all of us, together, can decipher this puzzle.

[MrSammo1]

9. Eye witness

testimony is only as good as the physical evidence that supports it.

In this case.........there is none.

[Woody Box]

11. Where did AA 77 go? Maybe here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x41380

[mirandapriestly]

12. yes, pretty interesting idea, it fits, too..nt