|
PENTAGATE |
|
TRUNCATED TESTIMONIES The testimonies cited by the French press are unanimous: all the witnesses -- "thousands of people" [1] according to some -- saw a Boeing 757-200 belonging to the American Airlines company strike the facade of the Pentagon and disappear into the building. Yet a rigorous analysis of the content of their testimonies imposes, there again, greater caution. The accounts published in Paris, six months after the events, differ sometimes widely from the original testimonies gathered "on the spot" across the Atlantic. The elements contradicting the official version have even been hidden altogether. Contradictory first testimonies The first testimonies to be gathered and published were in an article that appeared in the Washington Post dated Tuesday, 11 September 2001, at 4:59 pm. [2] Because it was the first sampling of witnesses, its value as a document is precious. The testimonies are less likely to be the object of a real reconstruction, because the media steamroller had barely been set in motion. What then, do these four witnesses of the initial moments have to tell us? First of all, there is Kirk Milburn, building site director for Atlantis Co. He speaks of an airplane, of debris flying in the air. Not of a Boeing. "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris fly in the air. I imagine that it hit the lampposts. It went 'Whoosh, whoosh', then there was fire and smoke, and I heard a second explosion." His auditory memory is precise: the aircraft made a peculiar sound and there were two distinct explosions. The second witness quoted is Steve Patterson, a graphics expert aged forty-three who saw a silvery vehicle pass in front of the window of his apartment, on the 14th floor of a building in Pentagon City. The Washington Post reports his testimony in these terms: "The plane, which made a shrill noise like a fighter plane, flew over Arlington cemetery, so low that he thought it was going to land on 1-395." He also said that the plane flew so fast that he could not read what was inscribed on its fuselage. But his description of the object is nevertheless precise: "The airplane, which seemed to be able to hold eight or twelve persons, went straight towards the Pentagon." A graphics expert by profession, this witness was relatively far away from the Pentagon, while at a reasonable distance from the aircraft, which allowed him to see it for a long while; his testimony is precise and clearly conflicts with the official version. It is all the more surprising because it does not correspond with the frame of mind in which he found himself at the moment of these events; since he was watching pictures on television of a Boeing crashing into the World Trade Center, this could have influenced him. It is thus not simply a mental construct after the fact, as many of the testimonies emanating from people who were too close to the Pentagon manifestly are. Their time of observation lasted less than a second with a reduced field of vision. What he says contradicts the official thesis: indeed, he does not speak of a Boeing but of a small plane for 8 to 12 passengers, producing the noise of a jet fighter. Unfortunately, Thierry Meyssan and his team have not succeeded in questioning him in the course of their investigation. Very probably, this awkward witness no longer wishes to respond to questions by the press. He has been impossible to get hold of ... except for Paris-Match, one of whose correspondents, Romain Clergeat, succeeded in tracking down Steve Patterson and getting him to speak. Here are the remarks that the Paris weekly indicates it gathered directly: "I was watching the pictures of the World Trade Center when I saw a plane pass before my window flying so low that one had the impression that it was seeking to land on the I-395 highway, but so fast that I couldn't read what was on the fuselage. Then I saw it heading towards the Pentagon lower than the tops of trees and crash into it. The plane was absorbed by the building and an enormous ball of fire then emerged." In this new account, which takes up almost word for word the initial testimony that appeared in the Washington Post, two phrases have disappeared: they are "that seemed able to carry 8 to 12 persons" and the reference to the "shrill sound of a fighter plane". We questioned the American bureau of Paris-Match. Saveria Rojek affirmed that Steve Patterson's comments had been gathered personally by her colleague Romain Clergeat and that she was unable to explain the variations in this testimony. She couldn't remember how Steve Patterson had been located and was sorry for having mislaid, since then, his address and telephone number. Too bad... Patterson's name was also mentioned by Liberation [3] and Le Monde [4] as that of a witness "against" Thierry Meyssan, without at any moment pointing out the fundamental divergence between his account and the official version. Let's continue with the four witnesses who testified in the first hours following the attack. The third, Asework Hagos, who was driving on Columbia Pike, said he saw an airplane flying extremely low, close to the surrounding buildings. He also indicates he recognized the American Airlines insignia, before seeing the aircraft crash into the Pentagon. And Tom Seibert, a systems engineer who works at the Pentagon, is the last witness on this first list. He said: "We heard something that made the sound of a missile, then we heard a powerful boom." The others quoted in this article were only indirect witnesses of the attack. We thus dispose of four principal testimonies collected on 11 September by the Washington Post. The first, Kirk Milburn, does not speak of a Boeing but of a "plane" making a peculiar noise. The second, Steve Patterson, speaks of small plane capable of containing between eight and twelve persons, and making a shrill noise like a fighter aircraft. The third, Asework Hagos, identifies an American Airlines aircraft. Finally, the last witness, Tom Seibert, did not see the aircraft, but heard the sound of a missile. It's difficult to form a definite opinion on the subject solely by reading these testimonies. Before going any further, it's advisable to recall certain principles about gathering testimony in the case of traumatic scenes, and to describe the phenomenon of feedback. Reminders on the debriefing of witnesses Gathering testimony is a difficult exercise. Any interview situation, in a general way, involves biases that will modify the nature of the words recorded. First of all, a witness unconsciously has a tendency to adapt his comments to his listener, and to propose to him the version that seems most likely to enhance his or her standing. Secondly, when it's a question of events of social or political significance, a witness will tend to align him or herself with the implicated social group of which he or she feels representative. For example, let us imagine a traffic accident involving a car driver, a cyclist and a pedestrian. The "driver" witnesses will have a tendency to accuse the cyclist or the pedestrian, while the "cyclist" witnesses will have a tendency to exonerate the cyclist, and the "pedestrian" witnesses to exonerate the pedestrian. Consciously or not, voluntarily or not, witnesses always have a propensity to construct a version of events that corresponds with their social role. This behavior, which can be observed in any interview, for example those carried out in the course of a sociological or psychological study, is particularly interesting when it applies to a traumatic incident, especially if the latter occurred rapidly or in a confusing fashion. Indeed, in this type of situation, the individual's various sensory organs often lack the possibility of capturing the event in a complete manner, and it's then the brain that will combine the different elements perceived to construct an intellectually coherent version. This phenomenon is known as "feedback". It's a reflex that consists in instinctively replacing a sensation that has been poorly identified by the sensory organ with another that belongs to acquired memory. Thus, when one hears a sound or a group of sounds poorly, the psycho-auditory zone replaces it by substituting another sound that it knows. The same applies to vision. An image that is too fleeting to be seen distinctly is replaced by another the mind has already encountered before and which belongs to the acquired visual memory. To do this, the brain will associate the different sensorial elements (sound, fleeting image, environment...) to deduce in a fraction of a second what it has "seen". But this association can also be the source of error: one can cite the example of a weapons engineer who had never seen a military drone. When he saw one pass by him at high speed he made a mistake and identified it with precision as a Mirage 2000, and yet the latter was an aircraft that he knew well and whose presence in that vicinity was very unlikely. Let's imagine for an instant an aircraft with silver, red and white colors, flying at low altitude and high speed, with a shrill sound, in an urban area. What is the likelihood that those witnessing the aircraft's passage, not having time to identify it, will reconstruct a posteriori, through a feedback reflex, the familiar image of a Boeing? It's difficult to evaluate, but the probability is high. Witnesses who saw too much In most situations, investigators gather conflicting testimonies whose reliability they must evaluate, case by case. Concerning the attack on the Pentagon, let's take the example of Steve Riskus, a witness abundantly quoted by the press. Like many people, he was on the highway that runs past the Pentagon. According to his statement, the cars on that road had almost come to a halt due to a traffic jam. He was nevertheless in the middle of driving, paying more attention to the road than to the skies. He also made it clear to Digipresse that he was listening to the news on the radio about the World Trade Center at the very moment when a Boeing appeared suddenly before his very eyes. [5] According to the reconstitution carried out by Valerie Labrousse at the scene, the aircraft crossed Steve Riskus's field of vision in less than two seconds. It was about one hundred yards in front of him, moving at close to 310 miles per hour. It is thus physically impossible that he could have observed in that instant the details he describes today in his testimony: "I was driving on Highway 27, with the Pentagon on my left. The plane came in from the right, very low, hitting one or two lampposts. I was so afraid that I ducked my head inside the car. It was so close I could clearly see the red and blue of the American Airlines cabin." It's a little as if he had seen a French high-speed train pass before his eyes, and was able to spot the location of the bar-wagon, while ducking his head. Let's take another witness, quoted in Le Monde, to whom Herve Kempf told us he attached considerable credit. This was David Winslow, an Associated Press reporter, living in a ten floor building close to the Pentagon. Here is his testimony, as it was published in Le Monde: "I was off work that day. I was watching pictures on television of the attacks on New York. At that moment, towards 9:30 am, I heard an enormous sound of airplane engines -- my brother is a pilot, as is a good friend of mine, so I know this sound [6] --, I heard it become louder and louder, and I turned my head to the right. Through the window I saw the enormous tail of a plane passing at full speed. I could distinguish a red logo. And then bang on the Pentagon, an enormous ball of fire. I've been a journalist for many years, and I would swear it on my life: it was a plane." Why did Herve Kempf place such value in this testimony, whose interest is quite limited? He gave us three reasons: "Firstly, he was a general affairs journalist at Associated Press, where accuracy is a religion. Secondly, he does not work on military affairs. Thirdly, he has personal experience around airplanes." And then he added: "He was looking at the pictures of the World Trade Center, so he was psychologically ready to see what he was going to see." There is the whole problem. Explosive metaphors... Two other witnesses, Mike Walter and Joel Sucherman, say more than they'd like to think. Both of them work for the national daily, USA Today, but were witnesses separately of the attack. Both have recourse, however, to the same metaphor: this plane did not behave like a plane, but like a missile. Joel Sucherman, first of all, said that from his car he saw the plane go by less than 75 yards in front of him, before it crashed 100 yards further on, into the Pentagon. If one estimates, as the official version would have it, that the plane was flying at over 300 knots (at least 315 mph), it would have traveled this distance in a maximum of 0.75 seconds. A little short, perhaps, to perceive "a silver airplane with the distinctive marks along the windows that made me say that was an American Airlines plane." And then he adds, concerning the plane's trajectory: "But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction. It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle -- almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked on its target and staying dead on course." [7] Mike Walter was also on the highway, with rush-hour traffic almost at a standstill. Looking through his window, he saw coming "a plane, a plane from American Airlines. I thought: 'That's not right, it's really low'. And I saw it. I mean, it was like a cruise missile with wings." [8] Questioned by Digipresse in March 2002, Mike Walter indicated that he had spoken metaphorically. [9] We never doubted him on that point. But the choice of this metaphor remains striking. All the more so because for him, it was a question of principle: it could not be a missile, because he "couldn't imagine the possibility of a plot or any responsibility whatsoever on the part of the military leaders or the American government in the attacks of 11 September." After his first declaration to CNN, Mike Walter would offer two new versions of the arrival of the plane at the Pentagon. On 21 March 2002, appearing on the French cable TV news, LCI, he claimed that the plane "folded like an accordion" against the facade. A few days later, he affirmed to Digipresse that the Boeing "continued its trajectory inside the Pentagon, but its wings didn't enter the building". According to this journalist, they were "folded back". The aircraft was also said to have "disintegrated". He was nevertheless able to see numerous pieces of debris (see his interview in the Appendices). These declarations are intriguing in relation to the other testimonies gathered. Mike Walter is indeed the only person to describe the instant when the vehicle hit the facade. Other witnesses spoke distinctly of two events: on the one hand, the aircraft that they see or hear, and on the other, the explosion. A peculiar sound and trajectory If numerous witnesses have related having seen a Boeing from American Airlines, a number of them nevertheless describe a trajectory and a sound that cannot be those of such an aircraft. Thus, many state having heard a shrill sound: Omar Campo, who was mowing grass on the other side of the highway, speaks of an American Airlines jetliner, that "came in screaming over my head". [10] One recalls Patterson speaking of a plane making "a shrill sound like a fighter plane" and Tom Seibert evoking "the sound of a missile". Joel Sucherman also speaks of a shrill sound, as does Afework Hagos. James Ryan, 27 years old, has an even more precise version, and notes an interesting detail: as the plane passed over him, he heard "a strange sound that he interpreted as being the sudden cut-out of the engines. He therefore raised his eyes and gazed at an aircraft flying at very low altitude that he identified immediately, he said, as being an American Airlines Boeing. He makes clear that he saw the company's logo, that the aircraft was silver in color and he also affirms that he could make out the windows. The plane flew over his car. At that instant he saw it waggle its wings as if it were gliding and that it had just 'missed the radio tower' in trying to stabilize. Then, with a shrill sound, the plane accelerated and sped straight ahead in the direction of the west wing of the Pentagon." [11] The waggling of the wings was confirmed by numerous witnesses, although the explanations varied: Afework Hagos thus said that "plane was tilting its wings up and down, like it was trying to balance". [12] Aydan Kizildrgli noted that the plane "banked slightly" before impact. [13] Mark Bright, a security agent at the Pentagon, heard, like James Ryan, a "throttle-up" just before the plane hit the building. [14] We've asked for opinions from pilots of Boeing 767's or 777's. For all of them, the behavior described by the witnesses was strange. For example, it is possible for a Boeing to oscillate on the axis of its wings, in order to adjust a trajectory. But it's impossible for this oscillation to be very rapid, as the Boeing 757 is a massive machine. To waggle its wings up and down, in the rapid movement evoked by Afework Hagos, is difficult to envisage. In the same way, while it's possible to throttle down the engines sharply, before throttling up again to full power, and thus give the illusion having cut off the engines then accelerated, this maneuver takes at least ten seconds for a Boeing. A length of time that James Ryan did not dispose of ... In all cases, these testimonies concerning the sound and the trajectory also correspond perfectly with the manner in which a missile flies in the final phase of flight, just before it strikes its target. The study of the testimonies and their contradictions permits us to conclude that the attack did indeed involve a flying vehicle with propulsion engines. It thus allows us to discard the hypotheses of a booby-trapped vehicle or a helicopter. The nature of the aircraft that struck the Pentagon remains, however, very problematical. The witnesses do not allow us in fact to determine whether it was a plane or a missile, and still less to affirm that it was American Airlines flight 77. We now need to confront the missile hypothesis with the material evidence. _______________ 1. L' Effroyable mensonge [The Horrible Lie], Guillaume Dasquie and Jean Guisnel, ed. La Decouverte, June 2002 (text on back cover). See also page 56: "thousands of American citizens saw the crash of the Boeing". 2. 'Extensive Casualties in Wake of Pentagon Attack', Washington Post, 11 September 2001, 4:59 pm (forty-eight journalists contribu- ted to this article): www.washingtonpost.com 3. 'Pourquoi la demonstration de Meyssan est cousue de tres gros fils blancs' blancs' [Why Meyssan's Demonstration Is a Tissue of Lies], Liberation, 30 March 2002. 4. 'Un avion a bel et bien frappe le Pentagone' (A Plane Really Did Hit the Pentagon], Le Monde, 21 March 2002: www.lemonde.fr 5. 'Steve Riskus: comme un dessin anime' [Steve Riskus: Like a Cartoon], Digipresse, 22 May 2002. 6. Without other comments on our part, this point surprised us: do you need a brother who's a pilot to recognize the sound of an airplane? 7. 'Journalist Witnesses Pentagon Crash', eWeek, 13 September 2001: http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s%253D704%2526a%253D15161,00.asp 8. 'Up to 800 Possibly Dead at Pentagon', CNN, 12 September 2001: 9. 'Mike Walter: "Ni missile, ni bombe, tin avion American Airlines"' [Mike Walter: "Neither a Missile, Not a Bomb, but American Airlines Plane"], Digipresse, 22 May 2002: http://digipressetmp4.teaser.fr/site/page.php?numart=492&doss=60 10. 'Everyone was screaming, crying, running. It's like a war zone', The Guardian, 12 September 2001: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4254882,00.html 11. 'James Ryan: "C'etait un cauchemar"' [James Ryan: "It Was a
Nightmare", Digipresse, 22 Mai 2002: 12. 'Everyone was screaming, crying, running. It's like a war zone', The Guardian, 12 September 2001, op cit. 13. 'Bush vows retaliation for "evil acts"', USA Today, 12 September 2001: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/attack-usat.htm 14. 'The Pentagon's first heroes in a day of heroes', DCMilitary, 28 September 2001: http://www.dcmilitary.com/marines/hendersonhall/6_39/local-news/10797-1.html
|