It's difficult to say whether there is a traffic jam here. It looks to me to be consistent with a scenario of light traffic, with the small amount of congestion near the Pentagon being caused by people having stopped and got out to look. But we don't see a large police presence there to try to sort out the potential chaos. This supports the claim by Riskus that the
photos are taken fairly soon after the incident. But his descriptions of one minute and "seconds" may be exaggerations, because we can see that a police car has already had time to find a way around the barriers and park off the road and the officer is out and appears to be walking towards the fire. So it look's as if it is soon after the incident and perhaps the first photo may have been taken within a minute, but it doesn't look like they were taken in rapid succession.
I wasn't able to make a confident assessment of whether there's a jam, or whether it's just that people have stopped to get out and have a look. That would appear to be irrelevant now since all of the accounts allegedly involving a traffic jam have now been discredited. Nevertheless, you never know what else might turn up, so it's always worth noting these details. Most of the photos give the definite impression of light traffic, but there was one which made me not so sure.

We have a witness who can demonstrate that he was there at least reasonably soon after it happened, and clearly claims to have seen an AA jetliner fly into the Pentagon. The problem is in it's very late lodgement, (more than 6 months! ) the lack of any critical questioning, the scant details in the account apart from the identification of the plane, and the possible exaggeration that it was taken within a few moments of the crash. The photos are the only redeeming factor which makes this account worthy of further inquiry. The crucial problem is whether Riskus's claim that it was an AA jetliner  has been made retrospectively, in the light of more than 6 months of the official story, or whether he has claimed this from the beginning. We don't know. Riskus also posted the photos at

http://criticalthrash.com/terror/crashthumbnails.html with the following message

I took these photos less than 1 minutes after I watched the American airlines 757 airplane crash into the pentagon on Sept 11 2001. I left shortly after the picture were taken in fear of further attacks.

The message is not dated. But he is even more specific about the plane. An AA 757. Since we don't know the date, it brings us no closer to being able to determine whether Riskus is making this identification retrospectively. But it does reveal that the communication between Scoop and Riskus was done by email, not voice, because the distinctive spelling/language in both postings indicates that both the Scoop comment and the critical thrash comment were typed by the same person.

At http://www.artbell.com/letters21.html  one of the Riskus photos is posted with this caption

Steve Riskus sends us: I saw the plane crash into the pentagon about 100 ft in front of me. Debris landed on my car.

It's undated. And with that message the Riskus account unravels. How long could Riskus have seen the object for? As in the case of Sucherman, at that range from inside a car, probably a maximum of 1 second. It's questionable whether even an aviation expert would be able to so accurately identify a craft down to the exact model of jet and the type of engines in that amount of time, especially under such shocking, difficult and unexpected circumstances, amongst the deafening and frightening noise. (which he doesn't mention) - and just for good measure, while was trying to drive a car. And if Riskus has any specialized knowledge of planes, he hasn't mentioned it, which would seem curious given the nature of the debate. But the deciding factor is the claim that debris landed on his car. If he was driving at the time, and he took the photos within less than 1 minute of the crash, then he must have taken them from virtually the same spot that he stopped his car, which allegedly had been hit by debris. So have a good look at the Riskus photos, and in particular at the other cars which are close to where the photo was taken, and therefore close to his car. Do you see any sign that debris has hit any of the other cars? Do you see any debris on the road? Do you see any debris on the lawn between the Pentagon and the road? In all of the photos, in combination, do you see any debris which has been flung out anything like that kind of distance? So we're asked to believe that completely contrary to the rest of the of the debris pattern, Riskus's car was hit, when there is no sign of even a scrap of any other debris within at least 50 yards. He also didn't take any photos of the damage to his car, or of the debris which must have been sitting either on his car or on the road, right next to him. One would think this had to be a photo well worth taking. So he had the presence of mind in a stressful situation, to note exactly what model of plane it was, with probably 1 second to see it, and the presence of mind to immediately start taking photos, but not the presence of mind to photograph the miraculously unique piece's) of the plane, the only debris to have been flung that far out, which just happened to hit his car and nobody else's, and presumably must have damaged it. This account is so retrospective and poorly verified that the only reason for considering it at all was the photos, and the photos do not support the account.

In many hours of painstaking analysis of every search parameter I could think of that offered any hope of finding eyewitness accounts of the collision, this was all I could find. The tools used were LexisNexis and Yahoo. Of course, I can't guarantee that nothing slipped through the net, but the search was exhaustive and meticulous. It's unlikely that anything significant was missed.

My conclusion is that there is no eyewitness evidence to support the theory that F77 hit the Pentagon, unless my search has missed something very significant. Given the strength of the photographic evidence that whatever hit the Pentagon could not possibly have been F77, I can see no reason for not stating this conclusion with a lot of confidence, unless and until contrary evidence emerges.

So how and why was such a strong superficial impression generated that the media was brimming with eyewitness reports? Basically, smoke and mirrors. When you look at the total number of potential witnesses turned up by this search, if you count only those which appeared superficially to provide a clear eyewitness to the collision, there were only 18 and one of these contradicted the official story.

Earlier, after dealing with the 8 witnesses which made it to the final cut, on the Urban legends site, I noted that a suspiciously high number of them were media workers. After analysis of all 18 reports, we find military personnel even more
heavily represented. It's not surprising that there should be some, since the incident took place an area with a high population of military personnel, but 8 of 18 is a very high proportion, especially when you add to it 5 from the media. Of the 5 remaining, there is no guarantee that some of them might not also have been military. Timmerman was the only one who gave an occupation, and being a pilot does not preclude the possibility that he was military. It's clear that the govt and the military have performed a brilliant feat of illusion here. But what of the media? Were they in on it as well?

It's not necessary to allege that the media were part of a malicious conspiracy to fabricate the story. Some of the bogus reports can be easily explained by the media's normal practice of bending the truth a little in order to be able to present a good story, quickly enough to keep up with their competitors. Combined with the desire not to upset authorities at a time of patriotic shock and grieving, with talk of retaliatory war already in the air, this would have made a strong incentive for the media to publish any eyewitness they thought they could conjure, regardless of accuracy or journalistic integrity. All that would have been needed was for the administration to plant a little well placed hearsay, and let the media do the rest in the inevitable scramble to have the best and quickest story. The rationale of the media, while not excusable, is easy to understand. In the frenzied period just after the attacks, the word comes in to the office that the explosion at the Pentagon was caused by a suicide plunge from a large passenger jet. This would seem to make sense, given what had just happened in New York. And the general frenzy and shock of the morning would not have facilitated clear thinking, and there was the added confusion of the bogus bomb report at the State Department. Any story like this needs to have an eyewitness quote to fit the standard media formula for an attractive report. So the desperate scramble would have been on to find any eyewitness they could, as quickly as possible. Third hand hearsay would probably have been good enough for most editors or journalists in this situation. And they could easily rationalize the placement of bogus quotation marks with the reasoning that "well I know that's basically what she said, because so and so told me, and I haven't got time to track her down before the deadline". Some would not have been above completely fabricating a witness, with the rationalization "well, I know that's what happened, and I know plenty of people saw it, and I've got a deadline to meet". To provide an eyewitness account of my own, in my former capacity
as a media spokesperson for the Campaign to Save Native Forests, in Western Australia, I was once falsely quoted in a similar context in Perth's"Daily News". I was directly quoted as saying things which I had never    even implied informally, off the record. The journalist wanted a juicy story, had a deadline to meet, and fabricated the entire interview. The first I knew of it was when I read it in the paper. And I have no way to prove that that's what happened. So it's easy to explain how what appeared superficially to be dozens, perhaps hundreds of eyewitness accounts has turned out after close analysis to be nothing. The fact such dishonest methods were needed in order to provide eyewitness accounts for something which if it took place, could conceivably have been clearly witnessed by dozens, maybe hundreds of people, is
itself evidence that the event simply didn't take place.

At this stage it's relevant to examine the alleged witnesses collectively. Having established a fairly clear layout of the geography surrounding the event we are now in a position to intelligently speculate on the following question. If the event actually did take place, what would witnesses be likely to have seen from the various vantage points around the Pentagon? The locations come into four main categories. The arterial roads running around the Pentagon's western perimeter, the cemetery, The Sheraton Hotel, and the high rise area of Arlington. From the nearby roads, motorists would have most likely have had a clear view of the collision, but not enough time to make any accurate identification of the plane, although it's possible that some might have been able to suggest that it was probably a big plane. Cyclists or pedestrians would have had a better chance of seeing the plane for longer, and therefore an increased chance of being able to identify it, although this probability would still be best described as marginal. People in the southern part of the cemetery would have experienced a plane fly over, frighteningly low. They may have had a better chance of identifying it as a large plane, but those on the west side would have had a marginal chance of seeing the collision. People in tall buildings- the Sheraton or other high rise in Arlington would have had the best chance of seeing both the collision and seeing the plane for long enough to identify it, at least as a big plane. An examination of this shows us that the collective pattern of evidence which we might expect is completely absent. Timmerman said it flew right past the Sheraton, but there are no witnesses from there. Was it empty at the time? My extensive searches did not turn up a single reference to anyone from the Sheraton Hotel. A qualification here. I was specifically searching for people who witnessed a direct collision. This search of course accidentally turned up other eyewitnesses who " almost saw it", but I did not make an in depth examination of these. So although my search did not turn up any reference to Sheraton witnesses, I can not at this stage categorically rule out the possibility that some "near miss witnesses" could turn up with search parameters specifically tailored to look for this kind of witness. But I can say that my extensive searches on the subject did not reveal a single witness in either category from the Sheraton Hotel. The same goes for people in the cemetery. Was there no-one in the southern section at the time? McGraw says he was driving to a graveside service at the time. Given that he was almost there, and had taken a wrong turn, it's reasonable to assume that it was close to starting time and therefore a considerable number of people were already gathered in one place in the cemetery. But there is no report of any such group having collectively witnessed such an event. If this service was in the north-western corner, then their experience would have been less dramatic. Nevertheless they still would have heard the plane and seen it, and heard the explosion, and perhaps seen the fire. So would have anybody who was in the cemetery, but I didn't find a single witness from this area. This doesn't prove that nothing happened. And it doesn't prove that nobody saw or heard anything from the cemetery or the Sheraton. What it proves it that the media were negligent in their duty to think about the incident and creatively seek out important and reliable witnesses. It shows it that the reports are highly selective. People in the Sheraton and in the cemetery would have seen something, but nobody has asked them. Which brings me to another point. Many of these witnesses were in a collective situation according to their reports,
but were curiously reported in a manner strongly reminiscent of a solo experience. There were a number who said they were stuck in traffic, but we don't have any collective sightings from people who all saw it together while stuck in traffic. Others saw it from offices in Arlington with no reference to any co-workers. There are no reports of collective
sightings of workers. (To be exact, I do remember one in this style, which I discarded because nobody saw the collision.)
What about the taxi-driver who was injured by a pole which was knocked down, according the McGraw account? The media love this kind of interview. What about a group of motorists who were all sitting in the traffic jam next to
each other, all relating what they saw in excited tones? The media love that sort of thing of too. What about people who were narrowly missed by falling poles? The media love that kind of interview. All of these tell tale signs of a normal reporting pattern are missing. The whole thing is very manufactured. Compare it with the live interviews and accounts of the WTC disaster. The press was right on the spot. There were lots of live accounts, and as always happens in such a situation, most of them were not very factual. Hysterical, crying, shocked people were blurting out their experience in a highly emotional way. We saw none of that with the Pentagon event. The reports are in general detached and factual like a retrospective witness statement to a police inquiry. 4 of the 18 are too late to have credibility. The collective impression of the eyewitness reports at the Pentagon is one of a scripted event.

When I began this research, I was genuinely open minded. I wanted to solve the problem of the contradiction between the witness evidence and the photographic evidence. I was determined that if the eyewitness evidence was there, to find it and authenticate it. If it was fraudulent, to discover it and expose it. My search led me convincingly to the latter path. I am now convinced that F77 did not hit the Pentagon wall. If it was hit by a flying object, which seems to be the case, it was hit by a missile or a small plane, perhaps a drone military jet. I anticipate the next question. "So what happened to the large passenger jet that everyone was seeing in the area at the time? Did it just vanish? "The question is pre-empting further research which needs to be done. Was there a large passenger jet seen in the area at the time ? A superficial reading of media reports would seem to suggest so. But then again, a superficial reading of media reports seemed to suggest that there were eyewitnesses to F77 hitting the Pentagon. Under close examination, these evaporated. I won't pre-empt the result of future research into the question of whether there were significant eyewitness reports of a large passenger jet in the area at the time. If it turns out that there is such evidence, that will create a new mystery to be unravelled. But it needs to be acknowledged that claims of mass sightings of a large passenger jet close to the event, have as far as I am aware, not yet been subject to meticulous scrutiny of the type presented here, and until such time as they are, any statements about them should be tentative. The other question which now needs to be addressed is "what happened to F77" ? At this stage, I have no idea. But I am now convinced that it didn't hit the Pentagon.

 

HOME

 

INDEX OF SEPT 11 ARTICLES