|
[Oops: in Act I, I incorrectly identified Ted Olson's wife as Susan Olson, rather than Barbara Olson. I think Susan Olson was actually Cindy Brady, sister of Marcia, Jan, Greg, Peter and Bobby. As far as I know, she was never married to a reactionary member of the Bush team.]
Witness Tom Seibert told the Washington Post that he "heard what sounded like a missile, then we heard a loud boom." The same Post article revealed that "Ervin Brown, who works at the Pentagon, said he saw pieces of what appeared to be small aircraft on the ground." Needless to say, a Boeing 757 would hardly be considered a "small aircraft." (http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/5m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html)
The Post also spoke to a Steve Patterson, who said that he saw the plane from about 150 yards away, "approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground." He described the plane as having "the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet," and he said that it "flew over Arlington cemetery so low that he thought it was going to land on I-385. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side." Patterson also said that the aircraft that he saw "appeared to hold about eight to 12 people" -- hardly an aircraft of sufficient size to be a 757. And a bulky 757 is certainly not the type of aircraft that you would expect to be observed approaching the Pentagon "below treetop level," as this one purportedly was.
The UK's Guardian began its initial report on the
Pentagon attack
with the words: "It sounded like a missile at first, the air above
Washington
filled with the terrifying roar of displaced air." One witness
questioned
by the Guardian claimed, strangely enough, that "the blast had
blown
up a helicopter circling overhead." Of course, since no photographic
evidence
of the crash has been produced, there is little hope of either
confirming or disproving
this claim.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4254934,00.html)
Yet another witness account of the attack, this one from a
reporter
for Space.Com, reads as
follows: "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."
(http://www.space.com/news/rains_september11-1.html)
It also moved nothing like a passenger airplane, at least on radar.
Air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien, who had earlier
that morning
cleared Flight 77 for take-off from Dulles, certainly didn't think it
was
a Boeing 757 that she was tracking on radar as it approached
Washington.
What she initially saw was "an unidentified plane to the southwest of
Dulles,
moving at a very high rate of speed ... I had literally a blip and
nothing
more." O'Brien described her impression of the projectile that she
tracked: "The
speed, the maneuverability,
the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us
experienced
air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. You don't fly
a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." The consensus opinion among the
controllers, after
tracking some of
the movements of the projectile, was that it "must be a fighter.
This
must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and
to
protect our president." Of the final portion of the aircraft's
destructive
journey, O'Brien has said: "We lost radar contact with that craft. And
we waited. And we waited."
(http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/2020_011024_atc_feature.html)
The majority of those claiming to have witnessed the event have offered accounts that are said to corroborate the official story. The stories told by these witnesses, however, are wildly contradictory and at times ridiculously implausible, occasionally involving scenarios where the plane drug a wing along the ground, or even turned cartwheels, before slamming into the Pentagon. As is apparent in collections of witness accounts, like the one posted on an 'Urban Legends' website (http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm), there is little agreement among the witnesses on the size and type of aircraft, the altitude and stability of the aircraft, the angle of approach, and various other details.






Unlike
the actual 'crash,' there is plenty of photographic evidence of the
aftermath of
the attack. Virtually none of it supports the official story.
Nothing that can be confirmed as aircraft
debris
is visible in any of the photographs that have found their way into the
public domain. Photos do reveal, and Pentagon officials have
acknowledged, that the
initial penetration into the side of the building was not nearly large
enough
to account for the wingspan of a Boeing 757-200 aircraft (actually, the
penetration
wasn't even large enough to account for the fuselage of a 757). In
fact, all the available photos
reveal that the initial damage to the front facade of the Pentagon,
after the alleged crash but before the collapse that occurred about a
half-hour later, was relatively minor. And the impact apparently did
not generate enough explosive
force to even displace the wire spools just below the alleged point of
impact.
The pre-collapse photos reveal that
the front wall
of the Pentagon remained remarkably intact after the initial impact.
Pentagon officials, and defenders of the official story, have claimed
that
the small entry
wound made by the alleged plane was the result of the fact that the
aircraft's
wings
were
either sheared off or folded back on impact, and that only the fuselage
entered the building
-- becoming, in effect, a very large missile. That would be a
much more plausible claim if a 757 did
not have very large
wings that would be clearly visible in these photographs if
they had in fact been sheared off as the fuselage entered the building.
Attached to those wings are two engines, each about 9 feet in
diameter, 21 feet
long, and weighing nearly five tons. The official
story doesn't really bother to account for them.

Nevertheless,
the official story claims that the plane did in fact impact the
Pentagon exactly as depicted in the above photo, as can be seen in the
graphic to the right, which was used by Pentagon spokesmen during a
post-911 press briefing. As can be seen in the graphic, Flight 77
allegedly plowed through three of the five concentric rings that make
up the Pentagon, coming to rest completely within the complex of
buildings.
According to various 911 gatekeepers, that is why there is no aircraft
debris visible on the lawn outside the alleged point of impact (such as
in the photo to the left). Also missing, needless to say, is any
indication that a 100 ton aircraft performed a gymnastics floor routine
on that lawn before slamming into the side of the Pentagon.



Sometimes offered in support of the official
story is
photographic evidence of an exit wound exactly where we would expect it
to be located if an airplane, or some other fast moving projectile, did
in fact
slice
through the concentric rings of the Pentagon in the manner indicated in
the official Pentagon graphic. Punched through the inside of "C" ring,
at ground level, was a remarkably clean hole that appeared to measure
roughly 8'-9' high and 10'-12' wide. This hole, punched through a
thick,
steel-reinforced masonry wall, was purportedly made by the
nosecone of Flight 77. There is no indication, however, in any of the
photos, of aircraft debris either inside or outside of the hole.