| REVIEWED |
9/11 Review
|
|
|
Web Site:
Top Topics:
Essays:
Viewpoints:
Mirrors:
|
At the beginning of the debate raised by Meyssan,Thierry's first book, much of the rebuttal focused on the testimony of witnesses who claimed that the saw a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, and this was cited by French journalists as proof Meyssan's thesis was wrong. But then again, some witnesses claimed that the plane crashed on the lawn before it hit the Pentagon which is obviously not true based on the photographic evidence, and another claimed it caught a wingtip before crashing and cartwheeled into the Pentagon which is also obviously untrue. In his second book, Meyssan also reviewed in-depth the statements from the various witnesses to the Pentagon crash. There is a wide a range of testimonials, some conflicting, some very interesting, that we will not repeat here. But he shows clear examples of how a story changes as it goes through the hands of different reporters, and how the testimony of a witnesses' testimony has to be submitted to rigorous scrutiny to eliminate those that contain flagrant inconsistencies. He also notes the remarkable percentage of the witnesses who are themselves reporters, editors or associated with the mainstream press, and how their stories seem coincidentally to get wider coverage. Testimonials are a tricky business. This is partly because we can't verify them: some of the testimonials that were widely reported were given by people who cannot be located now, and none of the testimonials were sworn statements under penalty of perjury (and/or treason)- after all, that's what an open and impartial inquiry should have been for. Bear in mind that the fact that there is any lack of consensus at all amongst the witness accounts is itself very significant. If a huge plane like a Boeing 757 flew across a crowed downtown freeway during morning rush hour at an altitude of 100 m. or less, you would expect a chorus of accounts that differed only in minor details. The fact that the eyewitness accounts even need analysis indicates that whatever hit the Pentagon was much smaller, and probably much faster, than a Boeing 757.
Holmgren,Gerard has made the most detailed study of the Flight 77
crash witnesses, for the Internet's premiere independent news
organization indymedia.org. He used Lexus-Nexus and Internet search
engines in a painstaking, meticulous and
Gerard Holmgren's final conclusion is unequivocal: 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 Flight 77 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. ... The other question which now needs to be addressed is "what happened to Flight 77" ? At this stage, I have no idea. But I am now convinced that it didn't hit the Pentagon. A number of witnesses in the PentagonAttack, many of them military
officers, mention the smell of cordite - very different from the smell of
kerosene - and a shockwave - very different from an impact and fire.
Killtown has an has complied an excellent listing of the
Links:
|
![[WWW]](Flight77Witnesses_files/moin-www.gif){kind=small}
See our page ![[EMAIL]](Flight77Witnesses_files/moin-email.gif){kind=small}