Guns and Butter 1pm Today - What Didn't Hit The Pentagon?

Guns & Butter
Wednesday June 20, 2007, 1:00pm

What Didn't Hit the Pentagon

with Dave von Kleistt, April Gallop and Barbara Honegger. Dave von Kleist examines mainstream media coverage of the attack on the Pentagon; Pentagon survivor April Gallop describes her experiences on September 11th, 2001, her first day back at work as an administrative specialist with the U.S. Army at the Pentagon, after maternity leave; and Barbara Honegger, professional military affairs journalist and former White House Policy Analyst, discusses her article, "The Pentagon Attack Papers".

KPFA 94.1 FM Berkeley 1pm PST, and streaming and archived at www.kpfa.org

www.gunsandbutter.net

Should be interesting...

Will definately be listening !!!

Thanks Yarrow and best wishes to all at Guns and Butter

GunsAndButter.net Show

Tuned in now to KPFA (94.1 FM).

Thanks!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://TruthSeeker.us
Spread the word! Many hands make light work! EMA: educate, motivate, activate.
Improve your activist toolkit and get your free RCFPs here http://www.RockCreekFreePress.com

DISINFORMATION DISINFORMATION DISINFORMATION

What info is disinfo exactly?

I'm 44 minutes into the show and I haven't heard ANY disinfo yet.

The clocks all stopped around 9:32am.

The speakers are great including April Gallop.

The show isn't over yet and I see people have already 'judged a book by it's cover' and down rated this blog post.

Unfortunate because I don't want people to get discouraged from sharing information. I want to encourage people to share info in a progressive manner.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://TruthSeeker.us
Spread the word! Many hands make light work! EMA: educate, motivate, activate.
Improve your activist toolkit and get your free RCFPs here http://www.RockCreekFreePress.com

This is awesome !!!

This makes a lot of sense to me anyway !!!

Great show "so far", thanks

Thanks

For your support, 911veritas. Always appreciated :)

Knee-jerk

You obviously didn't bother to listen to the show and just responded to von Kleist's name like a knee-jerk sheep. Please enlighten us as to which part of the show is disinfo?

I'm not going to argue about von Kleist's credibility, but his info here is about the Pentagon reporting by Jamie Mcintyre and is good. I do think von Kleist may very well have gotten an undeserved bad rap (and he is NOT a no-planer), though...

Always think for yourself and make up your own mind, but for god's sake at least listen first.

The TRUTH Movement needs a TRUTH Radio guide

The TRUTH Movement needs a Internet TRUTH Radio guide. There is so many shows in different locations, times, archives, , etc.
Anyone up to the task?

www.northtexansfor911truth.com

Working on it....

http://truthseeker.us/radio.html

In progress....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://TruthSeeker.us
Spread the word! Many hands make light work! EMA: educate, motivate, activate.
Improve your activist toolkit and get your free RCFPs here http://www.RockCreekFreePress.com

The other likely possibility

There is a lot of evidence contrary to what Von Kleist (transparent hoax promoter who made over $1 mil on In Plane Site) and Honegger (still a Navy employee who has made claims with zero evidence like Richard Reid actually being Osama, and Iran having done 9/11) are saying. April Gallup says she didn't see what she expected to see and that her watch stopped, but she doesn't claim to "know" that a plane didn't hit or that it was a missile, a Sky-Warrior, etc. She presents a reasonable viewpoint of an eyewitness and feels concerned they didn't want her to give interviews, etc. None of that adds up to any certainty of "no plane."

Remember, the entire content of Honegger's presentation to the 2004 LA Grand Jury was that Osama was actually the Shoebomber. Imagine it. People on the discussion list I was on with her at the time were appalled and angered. But what was done was done. BTW, Jim Marrs, who has published Honegger's paper in his book, is mostly known for his UFO research (Alien Agenda,) and is frequently interviewed on cable programs on UFOs.

Isn't it interesting how witnesses INSIDE the buildings count, but ones on the OUTSIDE who saw what was happening, are ignored. Wow, that's some "science" and "research" going on . . .

Amazing.

Wake up people!

From oilempire on Barbara Honegger:
"Navy employee Barbara Honegger, who is active in 9/11 conspiracy issues, offers the piggy back theory -- the hijackers found out about the overlapping war games and timed their attack to take advantage of the confusion. This is probably a limited hang out designed to keep military officers from whistleblowing, since the claim that al-Qaeda supposedly compromised US operational security procedures could be very effective at keeping insiders from explaining what they know about the exercises. Honegger has since made ludicrous claims that "shoe bomber" Richard Reid was really Osama and that the Pentagon was hit several minutes before it was struck by the plane (probably false leads designed to soak up time and energy on a wild goose chase)."
http://www.oilempire.us/map.html

oilempire on the Pentagon:
There are not any sensible arguments why the conspirators would have substituted a missile / drone / global hawk robot plane. Substituting a missile for the plane would have made the attack much more complicated, involved more technicians with insider knowledge, and not provided any direct benefit to the plotters (especially if the theory about remote control technology being used to direct the plane into the nearly empty part of the Pentagon is ever proved). The "no plane" theories don't make sense -- why would they bother to substitute? why risk being caught in the act, if someone got a clear photo? why not just remote control a 757 into the empty part of the building? The area around the Pentagon is densely populated, and a clear photo showing something other than the 757 would compromise the entire operation.
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon-area.html
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html

Pentacon Critique by Arabesque:
"Instead, the film simply moves on and concludes that there is “smoking gun” proof that the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station and flew over the Pentagon completely ignoring their testimony (and all other testimony) that claimed the plane hit the Pentagon. Robert Turcios did not see it hit, but claimed “it went in a direct line into the Pentagon—it collided.” Cherry picking their own testimony (i.e. special pleading), the filmmakers do not provide us with a single statement that the plane flew over the Pentagon. I challenge the filmmakers to find one single statement to support this conclusion from less than 5 years after the attack. The Pentagon is surrounded by several major highways and was filled with stand-still traffic jams on 9/11.[251] If a flyover actually happened on 9/11, it should be easy to find several witnesses who actually saw this. In contrast, how many witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon?"
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smo...

Whatreallyhappened.com's Mike Rivero:
"The "Pod People" will no doubt scream that the above photos are fake, just as they have insisted that all the photos which show debris at the crash site are fakes, and just as they scream that the witnesses to the passenger jet at the Pentagon "have to be" wrong. But witness-smearing is the exact same tactic the government has used to silence contradictory witnesses from JFK to the shoot down of TWA 800."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html

Joël van der Reijden's essay, 'Why the No-757 Crowd is Making an Ass out of Itself':
"People are send to the gas chamber based on witness testimonies. It's very obvious that eye witness accounts, when taken as a whole, are considered to be extremely reliable. Even the 9/11 research community acknowledges this, judging from their generous quotations from witnesses who claimed to have seen explosives at the WTC; or a missile at the Pentagon; or a missile hitting TWA800; or an explosion before flight 587 started to come down; etc. On the other hand, the moment the 9/11 skeptics community is confronted with a majority of the statements made about the Pentagon, they suddenly begin claiming that witness testimonies don't mean anything and that people are always imagining things. And on top of that, most of the 9/11 skeptics ignore the fact that the physical damage on the Pentagon does indeed correspond with a 757. And these are the people that call the rest of the world a bunch of sheep. Go figure that out."
http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm

Jim Hoffman's most recent Pentagon analysis: The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows -
"Factors such as these have contributed to the creation of a false dialectic, which has eyewitness evidence supporting the Boeing theory and physical evidence supporting the no-Boeing theory. By focusing on the physical evidence here, I hope to sidestep that dialectic and clarify what conclusions the physical evidence actually supports. I found that, in every aspect I considered, this evidence comports with the crash of a Boeing 757. At the same time, the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77. However, that lack of conclusiveness should not be surprising given the systematic suppression of evidence by authorities."
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html

Pentagon Attack Errors on 911Review.com
"Numerous points based on the physical evidence of the crash site seem to make an overwhelming cumulative case against a 757 having crashed there, provided one ignores the eyewitness evidence. However, most of these points involve some error in evaluating the evidence."
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html

etc. . . .

"There is a lot of evidence

"There is a lot of evidence contrary to what Von Kleist (transparent hoax promoter who made over $1 mil on In Plane Site) "

As Steven Jones has said:

“Watching the ‘In Plane Site’ video turned me (and many others) away from 9-11 ‘theories’ initially—until I found serious researchers, scientists looking at hard evidences, and avoiding tenuous speculations.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

That logic has a problem...

All it takes is for someone who supports "pods" or something else that the majority rightly consider incorrect, to state something that is TRUE (flaw exposed) following your logic, it must be ignored, never to be considered again (one-up for the perps).

To circumvent this flaw, you need to take each component individually and assess it as such.

This way, the baby is never thrown out with the bath-water and the double-bluff fails.

Best wishes

To circumvent this flaw..

...you need to take each component individually and assess it as such.

Exactly.

I dont know why Von Kleist gets such a bad wrap, its not like hes a no-planer, or a dew supporter. So he thinks he see's a pod, big frigging deal, I don't hold it against him. He's right on about everything else and I listen to his morning show daily. Is there some other thing besides the pod that he endorses that I may not have heard from him?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Assessing Evidence = Hard Facts, Avoiding Speculation

That’s not what I meant.

What Dr. Jones says is perfectly relevant here: Ignore the untenable speculations and stick to the hard facts.

I was not saying do NOT "...take each component individually and assess it as such."

This is perfectly good advice, and I agree. Wouldn’t “evaluating each component” entail taking the best evidence (hard evidence) and ignoring the weak evidence (unproven speculation)?

Dr. Jones disagree with the content of "In plane site" because he feels it does NOT stick to the hard evidence. That's his opinion and I agree with it.

"One of the movement's greatest assets is a physics professor at Brigham Young University, Steven Jones, who persuasively articulates the case for the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 in a scientific paper. Because of Jones' credentials, he addresses the criticism that the demolition thesis lacks the support of experts. In a slide presentation Jones has shown to scores of academics, he states:

Watching the "In Plane Site" video turned me (and many others) away from 9-11 "theories" initially -- until I found serious researchers, scientists looking at hard evidences, and avoiding tenuous speculations."
http://www.911review.com/disinfo/videos.html

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Please, people

Whatever you think of this show in particular, please judge our show in totality.

A lot of "Truthers" are far too quick to rush to judge and smear what they don't agree with.

I don't think the show presented the conclusion that no plane hit the Pentagon, it presented the conclusion that what may or may not have hit the Pentagon is very much in doubt. Who disagrees with that??

Already we have received an email from a respected researcher telling us he has removed all links to our show from his website because he can't support "disinformation."

Never mind that we have featured him several times and he has never had a pro9blem with our show before. Now we present one show that he disagrees with and we are suddenly a disinfo-outlet worthy of censorship from his readers!

Reasonable people can and do disagree about what happened at the Pentagon. We presented some points of view today that some of you think aren't credible. Ok, post your links to counter the information. That's reasonable enough.

But this name-calling and rush-to-judgement that I see more and more in the Truth movement does nothing but serve to divide us. I don't think you can judge our show as intentional disinfo based on our long history, which began shortly after 9/11, 2001.

We're volunteer journalists who devote a ton of our own time and money to producing this show. We make ZERO money from it, and spend our own producing it. We may not get everything right (in retrospect that are a few shows that we might not have aired), but we are sincere in our efforts and don't deserve to be smeared and/or censored because someone disagrees with some of the information we present. ESPECIALLY if it's based on one show, and not our history.

You folks do an EXCELLENT service...

It is a shame that some folks are trying to bully you into their way of thinking, very sad in fact.

I can only guess who the "respected researcher" is that removed your links, but based on the fact that the Pentagon is an enigma, only second to the "flight 93" incident, I find it hard to accept their decision is based solely on this show.

You had Dave Von Kleist (who I totally disagree with on the "pod") presenting totally factual and provable data, April Gallop providing eye witness testimony (including info that DoD employees were told to spin their stories to the official fable) and Barbara Honegger who tried to piece this enigma together (and did a great job, I share her belief that it was explosives, even possibly originating from the generator) that did the most of the damage.

Keep your chins up Guns and Butter, many reasonable researchers totally appreciate what you do and even allow us to listen without commercial breaks.

Kudos to you all, you get 10 out of 10 from me...

"You get most flak when you are over the target"

Many thanks and best wishes

The credibility game

"You had Dave Von Kleist (who I totally disagree with on the "pod") presenting totally factual and provable data, "

Veritas, you're ignoring Von Kleist's (extensive) history. Obviously he wants to maintain his image as a respected researcher. His latest film (promoted here last week) still includes "pods" under the planes. He is still a disinformation artist, pushing nonsense theories.

I suspect that the others on that broadcast are also suspect, as per comments in this thread.

We must distance ourselves from disinformation stooges. This is crippling and destroying this movement. Witness what happened to the "scholars" under the directed energy of James Fetzer (top shill).

These are false flag attacks against us!

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

judgement and reason

>>Never mind that we have featured him several times and he has never had a pro9blem with our show before. Now we present one show that he disagrees with and we are suddenly a disinfo-outlet worthy of censorship from his readers!

It's not really about 'disagreement.' That's like saying that creationism vs evolution is a "disagreement." Not all ideas are created equal. Some can be supported by the science and some cannot.

It's about presenting real scientific analyses versus presenting ideas that completely disregard the witness evidence as meaningless and the physical evidence which disagrees as "wrong."

We're all volunteers except for people like Von Kleist and Rick Siegel, who are making money each time the volunteers promote them. They aren't doing science. They aren't doing research. They are promoting slick DVDs with 1-800 operators standing by to take our money.

That's not about truth.

It's not about name calling and simple 'judgements', although it may feel that way to you -- it's really about science and non-science, i.e., errors and hoaxes. The analyses I pointed to took many many hours of research and careful debate. That's not 'judgement,' that's science.

I do know you mean well, but some of us work very hard in the sciences and are trying to reach out to those who can really make a difference, those who respect science as truth. When we tell dozens and dozens of people who lost loved ones at the Pentagon and who were at the scene that day that we think they were all "fooled" and that their loved ones were dumped in the sea and we have no evidence for that but we "know" it, who are we really dividing ourselves from?

And when the DoD drops the video on us all of the plane hitting the Pentagon, where will we be then as a movement? All it will take is to run that on an anniversary and we are sunk. Why? Because we are promoting claims and ideas as though they were science. Saying that because a watch stopped on 9/11 that means a plane didn't hit there is simply not science, I'm sorry! Using as a featured witness a woman who was INSIDE the building to promote this idea is really not science. People who are inside buildings can't see what's happening on the outside. There are some real basics here . . .

Again, it's not personal, it's about the evidence and what that tells us.
http://www.truthmove.org/content/disinformation

...

And when the DoD drops the video on us all of the plane hitting the Pentagon...

unless its a forgery, that will never happen. The physics of it are impossible. Even if one believes the oct flight path and trajectory, and all of the witnesses that clearly saw an AA jet (moving at 773.8 feet per second) there is no way that plane made a 16 foot hole, folded its wings back, and took the wings and the two 6 ton engines inside the pentagon with it. If the pentagon displayed damage where the engines would have had to have hit, and more massive debris and lawn damage, then maybe i'd go with you on this, but as is, nope, sorry. Think of how much else is visibly and physically provable bs from that day (wtc 1,2,7 etc), why suddenly believe them about the pentagon?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physics/Science/Mathematics do not lie, only people do.
9/11 was an INSIDE JOB

Accidental double-post

Deleted.

Stopped clocks

It wasn't "a" stopped watch, it was at least two, and possibly many more. How can you justify excluding that evidence and its implications?

Honneger argued that there is evidence that there were explosives in the building which went off around 9:32, prior to the official impact time of AA77. I think her argument makes sense and stands on its own, regardles of whether she thinks a plane hit the building or not.

Gallop gave a compelling eyewitness account, including her stopped watch at 9:31 and the fact that she saw no evidence of a plane of any sort when she went out through the hole. That doesn't mean there was no plane, but it sure is interesting.

Von Kleist pointed out very damningly contradictory testimony from a reporter who was on the scene on that day. That's also valuable information and shouldn't be thrown out because you don't like his other work.

Might it be possible that explosives were planted inside the Pentagon AND something hit it? That is apparently what happened at WTC 1 and WTC 2, so why not at the Pentagon? To say that the two are mutually-exclusive possibilities is a false dichotomy.

And do you really think that the Pentagon has been sitting on tons of multiple-angle videos clearly showing AA77 hitting on 9/11 just so that they can pull a coup on us all some day? The damage done to the official story by NOT showing those videos far outweighs any damage they might do to the 9/11 Truth movement if they bring them out some day. Dumb move, if that is the plan.

And pardon me, but it is personal when we're told we're going to be censored for supposedly disseminating disinformation.

[Pic of the Pentagon Helipad clock: http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=19 "The blast also knocked this clock from the wall, freezing it at 9:32. The airplane actually struck the Pentagon at 9:38 am; apparently the clock was six minutes slow."]

>>And do you really think

>>And do you really think that the Pentagon has been sitting on tons of multiple-angle videos clearly showing AA77 hitting on 9/11 just so that they can pull a coup on us all some day?

Absolutely.

This works 2-fold.

It would be highly logical to keep the public seeing us as the kooks they need us to be by keeping everyone who reads USA Today believing that we all think that real planes didn't hit buildings. But if we talk to people outside the Bay Area, we find that average people think we're nuts when they hear that, and real scientists who look at the 'evidence' vow to have nothing to do with us. Ever. I've seen people turned off 100% to 9/11 truth by the missile theory. This way the people with the lowest bar for anything have a basis in science are selected for to join our movement.

It would also be highly logical to then release the videos when there were no more options and it was a last case scenario to destroy this movement (i.e., someone talked). They have set us up as "no planes" in the media, and can easily destroy us with that. Why would we assume they would show their hand?

But in reality, we are all only guessing. That's why I don't make my moves based on what I *assume* they are thinking or why they do what they do.

>>when we're told we're going to be censored

You're misusing the word censored. I could also say you have censored all the people you haven't invited to be on the show. That's another misuse.

I'm sorry you take it personally. I take it personally when people attack me personally. I don't when people have a sincere response to something they consider mis or disinformation and respond based on the evidence, not on me personally. There is nothing personal here, it's about evidence. There is emotion - to be sure - I feel shocked, for one thing. But it's not censorship and it's not personal. it's about what some consider truth and what others consider truth and that those are different.

The emotional response has to do with a commitment to what people consider to be the truth. When people are open to whatever, they won't consider it a big deal, as cattlerustler mentioned. Lots don't -

http://911review.com/denial/bigtent.html
"The Big Tent refers to strategy of inclusiveness to grow the 9/11 Truth Movement. Big Tent emphasizes tolerance of diverse ideas and theories over quality of evidence and reasoning. "

Incorrect statement and absurdity alert

"The Pentagon is surrounded by several major highways and was filled with stand-still traffic jams on 9/11." (attributed to Arabesque)

That is patently untrue and verifiably so. You can see from the videos that were released that the traffic is moving very nicely around the Pentagon. Any "jams or slowness" would have occurred AFTER "the plane hit". (which doesn't support the point he's trying to make)

And I doubt VERY MUCH that "$1 mil [was made] on [selling copies of] In Plane Site". (that's actually absurd, imo)

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Forensic 9/11ologist

http://www.chico911truth.org/

9/11 — GET rEVENge! (in a peaceful manner, of course)

Not quite

As I showed in my compilation of the testimony, many passengers left the area after the attacks, and the area was blocked off eventually. For example, drivers went onto the other side of the road that was free of traffic (wrong direction). Typical early morning traffic is very dense in the morning. There are photographs of empty cars side by side (because other people left their cars after the attack instead of driving away).

Highway Traffic Jams right next to the Pentagon

There were reported traffic jams on early morning 9/11 near the Pentagon. Traffic jams were reported on I-395, Washington Boulevard, and Columbia Pike. All of these witnesses were in excellent position to observe the plane.

I took these pictures less then 1 minute after I watched the American airlines 757 airplane crash into the pentagon on September 11 2001. I left shortly after the pictures were taken in fear of further attacks… Yes, I did actually see the plane impact the building.”[574] Steve Riskus

1. “I was in a massive traffic jam, hadn't moved more than a hundred yards in twenty minutes… I had just passed the closest place the Pentagon is to the exit on 395.”[575]

2. “James R. Cissell sat in traffic on a Virginia interstate by the Pentagon Tuesday morning.”[576]

3. “we slowly crept along in traffic at about 9:30 am”[577]

4. “Traffic was at a standstill… I believe that I may have also had one or more car windows open because the traffic wasn’t moving anyway.”[578]

5. “Traffic was at a standstill, so I parked on the shoulder, not far from the scene and ran to the site.”[579]

6. “Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon… [when the plane came]Everybody was running away in different directions.”[580]

7. “At the time of the crash, Mason was “stopped in traffic west of the building.”[581]

8. “Traffic is normally slow right around the Pentagon as the road winds and we line up to cross the 14th Street bridge heading into the District of Columbia.”[582]

9. “He mistakenly took the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard…The traffic was very slow moving, and at one point just about at a standstill.”[583]

10. “With traffic at a standstill, my eyes wandered around the road, looking for the cause of the traffic jam… [after the plane hit] the highway was filled with shocked commuters, walking around in a daze.”[584]

11. “I was sitting in traffic on route 110 on my way to work.”[585]

12. “I sat lodged in gridlock on Washington Boulevard, next to the Pentagon on September 11. [I experienced] frustration with the worse-than-normal traffic snarl.”[586]

13. “I was sitting in heavy traffic in the I-395 HOV lanes about 9:45 a.m., directly across from the Navy Annex. I could see the roof of the Pentagon and, in the distance, the Washington Monument.”[587]

14. “For all of my twenty-eight years living in the Washington, D.C. area, terrible traffic was a constant… and now I was officially late for work. I was at a complete stop on the road in front of the helipad at the Pentagon; what I had thought would be a shortcut was as slow as the other routes I had taken that morning.”[588]

15. “Probst took a sidewalk alongside Route 27, which runs near the Pentagon’s western face. Traffic was at a standstill because of a road accident.”[589]

16. “Naval officer Clyde Ragland, who works near the Pentagon, was stuck in his office because the streets outside were clogged with traffic.”[590]

17. “I was sitting in heavy traffic in the I-395 HOV lanes about 9:45 a.m., directly across from the Navy Annex. I could see the roof of the Pentagon and, in the distance, the Washington Monument… Like the other commuters on the road, I was stunned into disbelief.”[591]

18. “I was sitting in the northbound on 27 and the traffic was, you know, typical rush-hour—it had ground to a standstill.”[592]

19. “Rodney Washington, a systems engineer for a Pentagon contractor, was stuck in stand-still traffic a few hundred yards from the Pentagon.”[593]
The scene at highway traffic after the plane hit

1. “People were just leaving their vehicles on Highway 110 and staring in disbelief.”[594]

2. “[on highway 110:] Everybody stopped [their cars] and got out…and started running left to right, and we had [a lot of] panic at that time.”[595]

3. “I parked my car and got out, and by the time I got out all the [people from the] buildings in the area had come out into the street, and everybody was seeing what was happening.”[596]

4. “Ironically, the passage of emergency vehicles got traffic moving again.”[597]

5. “Drivers began pulling over to the side—some taking pictures—not quite believing what they were seeing.”[598]

6. “[after the Pentagon was hit] Cars were going over the median on Route 27 because there wasn’t any traffic coming southbound toward the Pentagon. People were hopping over it any way they could, on the grass, anything… and we started yelling at people, Get back in your cars! We gotta get the f--- out of here! And I just kept repeating, Get in your cars! Let’s go, Let’s go! Get the f--- out of here. Go! Go! Go! And people must have listened because down the road you heard more people telling everyone to get in their cars and go.”[599]

7. “Afraid of being trapped, I drove through a gap in the median barrier and drove across 395 to an exit ramp.“[600]

8. “All of the drivers seemed to be in a trance. Then suddenly it ended when a woman began to scream, ‘They just hit the Pentagon, get back, get back.’ She backed her SUV back and forth until she was able to create a crease and then she sped out of the area on the emergency lane. That’s when all hell broke loose as people began trying to get out of the area any way they could, some went forward, and others turned their cars around and drove in the wrong direction. All in an effort to get out of the area.”[601]

9. “I could then hear cars squealing all around and people were just stunned.”[602]

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."