|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 |
Dancing_Dave (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Aug-24-03 05:17 PM Original message |
PNAC Neo-Con Agenda and Evidence of 9/11 Pentagon Frame-Up |
Edited on Sun Aug-24-03 05:18 PM by Dancing_Dave
The most enlightening Democratic Underground discussion I ever saw was the now archived responses to PNAC. PNAC set the agenda for the Bush Administration, and it demanded a new "Pearl Harbor" to "catalyze" the U.S. into a military state bent on controlling the Earth and the Space around it. This arrogant idea has already led to disaster, and we'll be experiencing plenty more disaster until we get off the course that people like Cheney and Rumsfeld have set.
9/11 certainly worked as their New Pearl Harbor. But did they really set it up for that purpose? This article published at Physics911.org http://www.physics911.org/index.php/docs/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=29&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 , along with all the evidence in the footnotes, is meant to show that 9/11 was an organized propaganda spectacle directed by neo-con organized crime in the Bush Administration. There is really a lot of conflict within the Pentagon these days. Lot's of people working there don't really like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz's neo-con clique. 9/11 made this clique very powerful, but their disasterous, deceptive and corrupt Iraqi operations have put them on rather thin ice again. Another 9/11 might not work on people who are close enough to see how Rummy works, and would prefer that their office space was not the target of a very high precision incendiary weapon...do they always have to hang around Rummy to make sure they are not on the side of the building that gets hit? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dancing_Dave (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Aug-24-03 05:32 PM Response to Original message |
1. French source on PNAC agenda and it's implementation on 9/11 |
Edited on Sun Aug-24-03 05:58 PM by Dancing_Dave
If you can read French, one of the most enlightening sources about the PNAC neo-con agenda and it's implementation on 9/11 by Rumsfeld and his neo-con clique is http://reseauvoltaire.net Free your mind!
|
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
QuietStorm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Aug-24-03 05:37 PM Response to Reply #1 |
2. what people generally miss |
is that the PNAC strategy ALSO lines up with Mofaz's Plan. Are you familiar with it? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dancing_Dave (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Aug-24-03 10:55 PM Response to Reply #2 |
3. No, I haven't heard of that plot...what's it about? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
QuietStorm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Aug-24-03 11:22 PM Response to Reply #3 |
4. It is not a plot it is a strategic plan |
General Mofaz and Ariel Sharon... here the guardian describes it... with analysis as to how it perhaps interfaces as a weak link the the US's overall strategy in Iraq... I have that here as well ... I will have to find it for you.... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=7251 The analysis does not out lineMofaz's plan just mentions it in their overall critical analysis of the US strategy in Iraq... I know I have it... here someplace but damn I came across it a long time ago... I have to see if I can find it... I am not sure if the link will still work. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dancing_Dave (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Aug-25-03 12:23 AM Response to Reply #4 |
5. That's an interesting thread... |
Edited on Mon Aug-25-03 12:32 AM by Dancing_Dave
It's interesting that in less than 2 years since the PNAC scenario was first sucsesfully inplemented on 9/11 2001, it has already begun to fall apart. Hitler didn't run in to such trouble so soon after the Nazi's fundamental scenario was first implemented through their Reichstag Fire Propaganda Coup!
http://copvcia.com http://www.oilempire.us |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
QuietStorm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Aug-25-03 02:16 AM Response to Reply #5 |
6. Now it is surfacing: The Israeli General's Plan (Mofaz's Plan) |
we are about here in the Plan I would say. snip "The army believes that the Palestinian Authority would be smashed. Interestingly, the generals' proposal also says that as a result of international pressure, some kind of peace force will be sent to the area to protect the Palestinians from the Israeli army. However this would take time: when it arrived, it would be faced with a fait accompli. Citing forecasts by their military intelligence service, the generals doubt that the Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian armies would go to war with Israel on behalf of the Palestinians. The Egyptian army might send troops into the Sinai, which will force the Israelis to call up the reserves as a protective measure. The Iraqi army may be ordered to enter Jordan and go to the aid of the Palestinians, although these forces would be destroyed by the Israeli air force before reaching the Jordanian border. more... Saturday, July 14, 2001 Jane's Foreign Report: THE ISRAELI GENERALS' PLAN http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=7251 10 July 2001 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
QuietStorm (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Aug-25-03 02:18 AM Response to Reply #5 |
7. You read The Guardian article here is Uri Avnery's article |
Edited on Mon Aug-25-03 02:19 AM by QuietStorm
that plan has been on the net over a year at least Janes picked it up July 2001.. Uri he is an Israeli leftist director of gush shalom... he runs it down NOW... doesn't refer to the plan itself... here is that article. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=8254 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dancing_Dave (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Aug-26-03 01:22 PM Response to Reply #7 |
8. Neo-cons of the world may be uniting -- a dark day for us all! |
Edited on Tue Aug-26-03 01:52 PM by Dancing_Dave
Certainly, the U.S. neo-con men could have used some help from the Israeli MOSSAD when they were founding their total Regime on 9/11, and of course it would also help neo-cons in the Israeli military-industrial complex who essentially wish to make their country into a dominating regional fascist power.
The MOSSAD has a great deal of experience in what they call False Flag Operations, and 9/11 was a covert operation of this type. Other examples would be Operation Northwoods, which would have killed Americans and blamed it on Cubans to provide a pretext for invading Cuba. The CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved, but President Kennedy vetoed it, so the plan was never carried out. Hitler's Reichstag Fire is another example, the Nazi's set it up so they could blame the Communists and terminate Constitutional Democracy in Germany and replace it with a military state bent on controlling the whole world...does that sound familiar? Check out http://thorrific.com/reichstagfire.html for a brief historical summery of this style of covert operation. Perhaps this can help us to understand who could have put so many bombs around the World Trade Center complex in preparation for 9/11...the MOSSAD would have the means, the motive, and probably the ACCESS. And they could have pretended to be construction workers is the months leading up to 9/11, we know there was construction going on around the complex then...but they would have to have some corrupt higher-up connection to the buildings to carry off the big inside job. Let us hope that the hidden truth gets out to enough people to create a new activist movement that may change the poisoned atmosphere and save us all! :think: :hippie: ;) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dancing_Dave (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Aug-27-03 12:41 AM Response to Original message |
9. Cross examining witnesses to the founding act of the Bush Regime |
Edited on Wed Aug-27-03 12:51 AM by Dancing_Dave
EARTH CITIZEN GERARD HOLMGREN HAS MADE FREELY AVAILABLE THIS DETAILED CROSS EXAMINTATION OF WITNESSES TO THE PENTAGON FRAME-UP THAT HELPED FOUND THE BUSH REGIME:
<<DID FLIGHT 77 HIT THE PENTAGON ? EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS EXAMINED by Gerard Holmgren gerardholmgren@hotmail.com copyright. Gerard Holmgren June 4 2002 This article may be freely copied and distributed without permission providing it is not for commercial purposes. Please include the authors name, the URL and the copyright notice. There is controversy over the question of whether AA F77 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 power poles which apparently should have been in the path of the jet are still standing. The damage appears to be more consisitent with having been caused by a bomb and/or a missile or small jet. See the following sites for some of this evidence. http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/pent.html 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 F77 is missing, are not in dispute. If the damage to the Pentagon was caused by impact from a flying object, this does not neccesarily prove that it was F77. 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 neccesarily support the theory that it was F77. It is not neccessary 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 there should be some indication that the object was a large passenger jet, and could not have been a much smaller jet, a military craft, a light plane, a helicopter or a cruise missile. 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, wheras an extensive interview gives an opportunity to test the credibility of the account. This does not mean that one line quotes are inadmissable, 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 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 eywitness 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 srongly criticises the theory that F77 did not hit the Pentagon and as part of its rebuttal, lists 19 referenced, 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 way 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 </gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp%2Ddyn/A14365%2D2001Sep11%3Flanguage=printer>." Washington Post, 12 Sep 2001 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 </gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.humanevents.org/articles/09%2D17%2D01/regnery.html>. " Human Events, 17 Sep 2001 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' </gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/attack%2Dusat.htm> ." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001 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 neccesary 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 </gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking%5Fpoint/newsid%5F1537000/1537530.stm>." BBC News, 14 Sep 2001 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 eywitness 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 http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm if you want to check the similarity with that of a small jet aircraft. Regardless of whether we accept this quote as admissible, it provides us with nothing except evidence that a flying object, probably a plane, hit the Pentagon. This provides no evidence that it was F77. "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 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 </gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.eweek.com/article/0%2C3658%2Cs%25253D704%252526a%25253D15161%2C00.asp>." eWeek.com, 13 Sep 2001 Here we have an identifiable witness.But I have a problem with the assertion that he "saw it all". Again, the writer described the collsion, and the plane. Here is the quote,unembellished. 'My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to 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 collsion. 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 <http://srd.yahoo.com/srst/339336/eweek.com/1/1/T=1021283154/F=8943e731f29347477845cb91c16d04e1/*http://www.eweek.com/> - news, product reviews, and features that cover the developments in the computer industry. Formerly PC Week. http://www.eweek.com/ More sites about: Computer and Internet Magazines <http://srd.yahoo.com/srctg/70338/eweek.com/1/1/*http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/News_and_Media/Magazines/> 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 doen'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. "'I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon,' eyewitness Mike Walter said of the plane that hit the military complex. 'Huge explosion, great ball of fire, smoke started billowing out, and then it was just chaos on the highway as people either tried to move around the traffic and go down either forward or backwards,' he said." - "Witnesses and Leaders on Terrorist Attacks </gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/attack.in.their.words/>." CNN, 11 Sep 2001 A check of the original transcript ( 4.58 pm) shows that Walter does refer to seeing an American Airlines jet. His only quote with regard to the collision was the section quoted above. He doesn't actually say that he saw it slam into the Pentagon, but that might be what he meant. We can't tell from this quote, but we should be able to find plenty of media references to his testimony, because by an extraordinary coincidence, Mike Walter also happens to work for "USA today." Bloomberg news reported on Sept 11 at 3.26 pm and again at 4.23 pm (so this interview is the earliest record of a Mike Walter statement, preceding the CNN quote by about 80 minutes) Mike Walter, of USA Today, watched the plane descend as he was stuck in traffic. "I said 'that plane is really flying low,"' he said in an interview. " It disappeared and I heard the explosion and saw a ball of fire. It was an American Airlines plane. You saw a big silver plane and those double A's." So in his first interview he clearly states that he did not see the collision. The press association reported Eyewitness Mike Walter, a journalist, said he had seen the flight crash as he drove to work. "It was like a Cruise missile with wings," he said. "I saw parts of the plane. The debris was on the overpass. I saw these military units run out with stretchers and set up a triage. As we have already established, Walter has not actually made any statement to the effect that he saw the plane hit the Pentagon. This report has nothing to change that, but parphrases in such a way that this misleading impression is conveyed. On sept 12, the Baltimore Sun referred to Walter and but only quoted "I saw a big ball of fire". The same day the Boston Globe reported Mike Walter, a reporter with USA Today, was stuck in traffic during his commute to work, listening to the radio reports of the World Trade Center catastrophe when he saw the American Airlines jetliner fly over too low and too fast. Still it took him several moments to realize what was about to happen. "At first it didn't register," he said. "I see planes coming into National He watched the plane pass over a hill separating him from the Pentagon and disappear. Then the boom and the flames climbing into the air. Again, an explicit statement that he did not see the collision, although this time stated by commentary, not Walter himself. Also on Sept 12, The Milwakee Sentinal Journal quoted "It was typical morning rush hour, and no one was moving. I said to myself, that plane is really low. Then it disappeared and I heard the explosion and saw the fireball." The Washington Times of Sept 12 picked up the CNN quote, almost word for word (without sourcing it) but added that Walter was on his way to work at "USA today's television operation". So where is USA today's TV report, featuring Mike Walter? So all the interviews which Walter gave on Sept 11 clearly indicated that he did not see the collision.What did he say on Sept 12? On Sept 12 6.00am ET, Bryant Gumbel from CBS interviewed Walter. Mr. MIKE WALTER (Witness): Good morning, Bryant. GUMBEL: I know we spoke earlier, but obviously, some folks are just joining us. Take us through what you saw yesterday morning. Mr. WALTER: Well, as--as we pointed out earlier, Bryant, I was on an elevated area of Highway 27 and I had a very good view. I was stuck in traffic. We weren't moving and--and I could see over in the distance the American Airlines jet as it kind of banked around, pivoted and then took a steep dive right into the Pentagon. There was no doubt in my mind watching this that whoever was at the controls knew exactly what he was doing. It was full impact, a huge fireball, thick column of smoke and, you know, pandemonium after that. I mean, bedlam. Everyone was trying to escape the area; people very, very frightened. GUMBEL: Did you see it hit the Pentagon? Was the plane coming in horizontally or did it, in fact, go on its wing as--as it impacted the building? Mr. WALTER: You know, the--the--the--there were trees there that kind of obstructed it, so I kind of--I saw it go in. I'm not sure if it turned at an angle. I've heard some people say that's what it did. All I know is it--it created a huge explosion and massive fireball and--and you knew instantaneously that--that everybody on that plane was dead. It was completely eviscerated. And from the same show GUMBEL: Tell me, if you could, about the manner in which the--the plane struck the building. I ask that because, in the pictures we have seen, it appears to be a gash in the side of the Pentagon as if the plane went in vertically as opposed to horizontally. Can you tell me anything about that? Mr. WALTER: Well, as I said, you know, there were trees obstructing my view, so I saw it as it went--and then the--then the trees, and then I saw the--the fireball and the smoke. Some people have said that the plane actually sent on its side and in that way. But I can't tell you, Bryant. I just know that what I saw was this massive fireball, a huge explosion and--and a--the thick column of smoke and then an absolute bedlam on those roads as people were trying to get away. I mean, some people were going on the emergency lanes, and they were going forward while others were trying to back up. But one woman in front of me was in a panic and waving everyone back, saying, 'Back up. Back up. They've just hit the Pentagon.' It was--it was total chaos. Walter spoke to NBC at 7.00 ET the same day Mr. MIKE WALTER (Eyewitness): It kind of disappeared over this embankment here for a moment and then a huge explosion, flames flying into the air, and--and just chaos on the road. So, on tueday afternoon, Walter was explicitly stating that he did not see the collision. It seems that he had a think about it overnight, and at 6.00 on wednesday morning, confidently told Bryant Gumbel that he had, but was so flustered by the simple question of whether he actually saw it hit the Pentagon, and what angle the plane was on, that he immediately backed off preferring to concentrate on the fireball and the panic, and by the time he spoke to NBC an hour later, had retreated to his earlier story that he didn't see the collision. This is why eyewitnesses must be identifiable and available for questioning. It also demonstrates why extensive interviews carry more weight than short quotes which can't be subject to critical scrutiny. Who would have guessed the tangled mess of Walter's statements, if they had only seen this quoted ? I had a very good view. I was stuck in traffic. We weren't moving and--and I could see over in the distance the American Airlines jet as it kind of banked around, pivoted and then took a steep dive right into the Pentagon. There was no doubt in my mind watching this that whoever was at the controls knew exactly what he was doing. It was full impact... And let's take a closer look at this statement, made to Gumbel. "I was on an elevated area of Highway 27 and I had a very good view. I was stuck in traffic." An hour later he contradicted this with "It kind of disappeared over this embankment here for a moment " But if the 6.00 statement was true, then lots of other people, stuck in the same traffic, should also have had a very good view. So presumably there should be plenty of other eyewitnesses who saw it " as it kind of banked around, pivoted and then took a steep dive right into the Pentagon." Keep this in mind as the search continues. I searched about 100 more media reports of Mike Walter,and couldn't find anything different. Incredibly, I couldn't find a single interview with him or reference to him on USA today. This account is too confused and contradictory to have any credibility, and he explicitly stated several times, including his earliest statement, that he did not see the collision. On the one occasion when he changed this, he backed off under questioning. Mike Walter does not qualify as an eyewitness to a large passenger jet hitting the Pentagon. "'I saw the tail of a large airliner. ... It plowed right into the Pentagon, " said an Associated Press Radio reporter who witnessed the crash. 'There is billowing black smoke.'" America's Morning of Terror </gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.channelonenews.com/articles/terrorism/wrapup/>. " ChannelOne.com, 2001 Yet another media worker who (allegedly) witnessed it. Extraordinary! The original source gives no details. Simply a statement that that's what an AP radio reporter said. But in a Yahoo search, I found the same comment attributed to AP radio reporter Dave Winslow. http://netscape.com/ex/shak/news/stories/0901/20010911collapse.html So surely Winslow must have given some interviews. Must have done a radio report for AP.Apparently not. I couldn't find any electronic AP reports that had anything to do with Winslow. All I could find from AP was two written reports.The first was a press release http://www.apbroadcast.com/AP+Broadcast/About+Us/Press+Releases/AP+Broadcast+Details+Coverage+of+Tragic+Terrorist+Attacks.htm This raised even more questions. It refers to Winslow witnessing the crash, without actually quoting him. AP Radio Reporter Dave Winslow witnessed the explosion at the Pentagon and confirmed that it was a plane that caused the destruction. As a result, AP members were first to know that it was an American Airlines jet that had gone down. So where is the Winslow's broadcast? And how did they know that it was a AA jet? Winslow doesn't mention that in the quote, and there doesn't appear to be any other media record of him.What did he say that confirmed it was a AA jet? Did he mention it off the record to colleagues in the office? Why not let Winslow speak for himself? Given the experience with Mike Walter's account, I would like to be asking Winslow some questions. Such as "What do mean you saw the tail of a large plane? Where was the rest of it? Did you see any other part of it? Do you mean that the tail plowed into the Pentagon? Or are you assuming that some other part of the jet that you didn't see hit the Pentagon? Did you see the tail before or after the collision?" "Did you actually see the collision?" etc. The other AP print report is by Ron Fournier at http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/specialnews/Terror/2000h.htm and again trots out the identical quote of the elusive Dave Winslow. So, did Winslow make the quote directly to Fournier? Exactly how, when and who is the original source of this quote? Doesn't Winslow have anything other to say than these 19 words? There are a few slight variations on Fournier's article scatterered around the net at different pages, but all of them repeat the Winslow quote identically, with no elaboration or sourcing. BBC News also reported the quote, but added an intruiging twist to it at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1537000/1537500.stm It said that Democrat Consultant Paul Begala saw an explosion at the Pentagon. Associated Press reporter Dave Winslow told Mr Begala he saw "the tail of a large airliner... It ploughed right into the Pentagon". So the quote is second hand, or possibly third hand. BBC reports this without specifying where it got Begala's story from, and without any identified journalist taking responsibilty for the story. So this is a case of "Somebody told the BBC that Begala told them that Dave Winslow told him." I haven't found any record of any BBC reporters at the scene to interview eyewitnesses. But then, I haven't found any record of any press at the scene to conduct interviews. We have names of witnesseses, 18 of them, on the urbans legends site, but no information about how any of these names were sourced (discounting those press members who were actually witnesses themselves). So where did the BBC get the information that Begala had been spoken to by Winslow? Is this the original source of the quote? Second or third hand hearsay? Did Begala also directly contact Fournier and tell him of Winslow's quote, (which would make it second hand to Fournier) and Fournier fail to mention this? Or did Winslow dish up the identical words to both of them independently, complete with the ... between" airliner" and "it"? The fact that both the BBC report and the Fournier article put the dots in the identical place, means that one has lifted it from the other's web posted report. (There would not have been enough time for hard copy printed reports to be available.) Both reports are dated Sept 11. The BBC report is 18.54 GMT which is approximately 3.00 pm on the East Coast of the USA. The AP report does not give a time so we can't be sure who published it first. But we can run through some possibilties. If the BBC posted it first, then Fournier has used a 3rd hand quote, and presented it as first hand, without aknowledging the source which presented it 2nd hand. If Fournier's quote was first, then the BBC has invented the part about Begala. But why would they ficticously represent a direct quote as being second hand? It's more likely to be the other way around. Unless they contacted Fournier and asked him about the source of the quote, and he told them off the record that it was second hand from Begala - something which was ommited from his article. The ... between the words "airliner" and "It" might seem to imply that Winslow actually said more than this, and that the quote has been edited. But curiously, the same words are repeated verbatim in every media reference to Winslow that I could find. A few had dispensed with the ... giving it the appearance of an unedited quote. One had replaced it with - also creating this impression. Obviously, once this enigmatic quote was out there, other media just picked it up and repeated it, without question. It multiplied itself throughout the media like a computer virus, without anybody actually tracking down Winslow and asking him to verify, or elaborate. If Winslow actually saw the collision, surely there must be more to his account than this. A search for "Dave Winslow" found 13 newspaper reports, all for for Sept 11 or 12 and all with the identical quote, similarly unverified and unquestioned, with no elaboration, although some ommitted "there is billowing black smoke." No-one claims to have interviewed Winslow and I couldn't find any transcript of a broadcast by him. Determined to get to the botttom of this, I did a search with unrestricted dates for every possible type of media, for anything to do with Dave Winslow at any time. I found 36 matches, 16 of them repeating identically the aforementioned quote. None of these made any reference whatsover to Winslow apart from the quote. The rest were nothing to do with Dave Winslow, the AP reporter. They concerned Dave Winslow the musician, Dave Winslow the police officer, Dave Winslow the airforce pilot, Dave Winslow the insurance spokesman etc. Not a single match for AP reporter Dave Winslow in any context except his alleged quote. In any kind of media at any time. I searched over 100 Yahoo matches with the Keywords "Dave Winslow AP " with the same result. Has Dave Winslow ever filed a radio report? Has he ever interviewed anyone? Does he exist? I have found no evidence that he does. If anyone (including Mr Winslow himself) can come foward with evidence other than that quote, that an AP radio reporter named Dave Winslow exists, I will willingly retract the statement, but up until then, I am treating this account as a fabrication. At very best, it is almost certainly second hand, and in it's present form is too enigmatic to have much meaning. It definitely does not qualify as a verifiable eyewitness account of a large jet hitting the Pentagon.>> THERE'S LOTS MORE OF THIS AT: http://nyc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=25646&group=webcast |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Sat Jun 01st 2024, 12:01 AM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC