|
DID AA 77 REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON ?
EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS EXAMINED. First
published June 2002. Posted on this site with minor corrections, January
2005. (Author’s
note: At the time this article was published, public awareness of the evidence
that no large plane actually hit the pentagon was very marginal. Argument at
this time was mostly limited to intuitive examination of photos. This article
was—to the best of my knowledge—the first research to go beyond intuitive
arguments and thoroughly examine the question in a methodical and deeply
researched manner. Apart from normal web searches , I used the media search
engine Lexis Nexis, which keeps an online subscription database of media
reports, many of which are not available on the web. Copyright.
Gerard Holmgren. This article may be freely copied and distributed providing it is not for commercial
purposes. Please include the authors name, the URL where you found it and the
copyright notice. There is
controversy over the question of whether AA 77 actually did hit the Pentagon on
Sept 11. It centres 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 light 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 for some of
this evidence. http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/lawn.html http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77.html Physical and
mathematical analysis of
Pentagon
strike. 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 AA77 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 AA77. 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 AA77. 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 for a report to be considered as evidence
for AA77, there should be some indication that the object was a large passenger
jet. 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 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
criticises the theory that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon and as part of its
rebuttal, lists 19 weblinked
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 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" 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" 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'" 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" 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 "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" 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 travelling
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 travelling 100 yards in 2 seconds, gives it a speed of 102 mph.
Sucherman doesn't say anything about seeing the alleged
collision. 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
organisation 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
sceptical 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 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. |