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 o'clock. 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 suffered 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 occurred, 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 squeeze in an apartment block which allows him
to see the collision area past the helipad, but still blocks out the poles, and
allows him to see the Navy Annex but blocks
everything in-between. 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 accidentally, 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 Washington 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 Boulevard. 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 Boulevard, 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 analysis 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 sensationalizing 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.
CONTINUE