C.N.N.´s Early Warning About The Pentagon Attack: Psychic Journalism

Not quite sure if that has been spotted before.

Watching the uncut CNN archives for another thing I noticed something odd:

At 09:40am EDT while CNN was reporting live on the ongoing events, suddenly "REPORTS OF FIRE AT PENTAGON" appears under the BREAKING NEWS headline. OK, I seemed to recall that CNN reported on September 12 the official impact time of Fligt 77 to be 09:43am.

It is here at 10:52 into this archived CNN footage (uncut)

From CNN´s Chronology, September 12, 2001:

9:43 a.m.(ed. EDT): American Airlines Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon, sending up a huge plume of smoke. Evacuation begins immediately.

Hmm. They must have had a psychic on staff...

But hey, we cannot be fooled so easily right? The CNN timeline posted September 12 2001 must be wrong (it is for the first collapse also)

From Pilotsfortruth it seems the actual impact time at the Pentagon is 09:37:44 AM EDT

The screenshot below shows the very last frame of the recorded data. Its stops at 9:37:44 AM EDT (Official Impact Time is 09:37:45).

Aaaah. That solves it then... Eh, no.

Imagine the impact time of 09:37:44 AM EDT.

09:37:44 BOOOOM!
Speculative:
09:38:00 Witnesses: Huh? Whawazdah?
09:38:?? Fire alarms in Pentagon
09:39:00 Pentagon staff scrambling all over the place (not Pentagon staff calling C.N.N. first I can assure you)
09:39:?? Smoke rises from the Pentagon
09:39:?? Someone calls C.N.N. presumably from a cell phone (A witness or even a reporter)

"Yeah,eh there is smoke coming from the Pentagon"
-"Excuse me?¨
TICK TOCK TICK TOCK
"THERE IS SMOKE FROM THE PENTAGON; IT IS ON FIRE (YOU MORON)"
-"Can you please hold sir?"
TICK TOCK TICK TOCK
Confirmation Process
TICK TOCK TICK TOCK
CNN Editor in control warns teleprompter "There is a fire reported at the Pentagon"
TICK TOCK TICK TOCK
Teleprompter enters "REPORTS OF A FIRE AT PENTAGON" (using how many fingers?) probably verifying this carefully before pressing the enter key.
TICKbloodyTOCK!

Now, at what time would you expect this message to show up on the live CNN feed? Five minutes after the actual crash quick enough? At least not less than five minutes after the official crash has occured. Unless.... Someone was waiting at or near the Pentagon for an event with a cell-phone in hand and dialled CNN immediatly after the crash.

Only way to get this report up on screen that fast.

Timeline from the archived video (left) and the matching real time (right, watch lower right corner)

07:13 09:37
07:58 09:37:44 (BOOM)
10:52 09:40:36 "REPORTS OF FIRE AT PENTAGON" displays on screen (Plural!!)
14:31 09:45:07 First oral mention of a fire at the Pentagon and footage at the Pentagon by the reporter
17:38 Reporter: "A plane has crashed at the Pentagon"
18:42 Reporter: "There was a helicopter circling the building and an explosion according to several witnesses" Interesting for another thread.

So that´s 2 minutes and 52 seconds between the actual moment of impact (as established by the black box data), and the moment that the report appeared on the screen. Noone is that fast if not prepared and in place for a Pentagon attack.

What is the first thing you do when you see somehting like this? Gaze at the scene or within seconds dial C.N.N.

If you were at the scene, and you just witnessed a passenger plane go into the Pentagon?

You would scream over the phone "A *** JET JUST FLEW INTO THE PENTAGON" not "There is a fire at the Pentagon".

The teleprompter would have typed "POSSIBLE PLANE CRASH AT PENTAGON".

If the person that called did see an explosion, the teleprompter would have typed "POSSIBLE EXPLOSION REPORTED AT PENTAGON".

If the person had just seen the smoke from somewhere, and even in a hurry, would not be able to get the "REPORTS OF FIRE AT PENTAGON" on screen within 02:52 of the actual crash. It would have taken at least thirty seconds from the time of the actual crash to the point where huge plumes of smoke would be rising from the Pentagon. Another 30 gone.

I want to know who called C.N.N. in those two minutes and 52 seconds, and what they said.

It doesn't seem worth spotting really.
CNN probably had reporters on the scene, or at least friends and contacts. Anyone who knows people at CNN and has a cell-phone would call right away. They have networks, they like to be fast. Two minutes is pretty fast but within reason I think.
I rain on parades. If it's a good enough parade it'll roll on, if not, it ends. I am raining on this foreknowledge evidence parade.

If there were reporters on the scene as you say, the breaking news would not be: "REPORTS OF A FIRE AT PENTAGON".

It would be: "POSSIBLE PLANE CRASH AT PENTAGON"

Or at least: "EXPLOSION REPORTED AT PENTAGON"

Anyone with direct links to C.N.N. near enough at the Pentagon would at least have heard the explosion, and would have reported as such.

It is was "just" a fire being reported, the report must have come from someone not near enough to report a plane crash or an explosion.

If that person was far enough from the Pentagon, this person must have realized there was a fire from seeing large smoke clouds developing over the Pentagon.

It should have taken a minumum amount of time for this smoke to develop, the person realising there is a fire, and then calling it in.

Even if the person calling it in is a C.N.N. reporter, do you think it would appear on screen nationwide without some form of cross-check or a procedure? I think there is a "BREAKING NEWS" procedure at C.N.N. where a report will be put on screen according to a set procedure, and that that procedure would be longer than the time needed for a far bystander to call it in.

Am I wrong?

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Truth4hire]

Maybe their source was inside the Pentagon, interviewing some guy or something, and saw fire? He/she wouldn't know it was a plane yet. Anyway the point is the timing. I admite 2 minutes is damn quick but within reason in this info age. Now if the reports had come in 2 minutes early...
oh yeah, and the smoke. Duh.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Ok, that´s an explanation, but is it an acceptable one?

Seeing a fire and smoke would be a considerable time after the crash.

Even if the one that called was in the Pentagon itself, and called C.N.N. after the fire alarm went off, do you think this call would have been made immediately by that person, or would this person first be confused like everyone else.

The point I am getting at is that it looks like someone tipped C.N.N. off early, almost as if that person was waiting for the event to happen.

Anything else, or anyone reporting close to the Pentagon would not have reported a fire, but at least an explosion. This smells, and not of daisies!

Originally posted by Truth4hire
Ok, that´s an explanation, but is it an acceptable one?

Seeing a fire and smoke would be a considerable time after the crash.

Like anywhere from five to twenty seconds. The explosion was reported by everyone as very loud, audible for miles. All head would turn that way and see a smoke cloud within 30 sec for sure.

Even if the one that called was in the Pentagon itself, and called C.N.N. after the fire alarm went off, do you think this call would have been made immediately by that person, or would this person first be confused like everyone else.

True, so more likely one of the tousands in the few-mile radius who herd the boom and saw the plume.

The point I am getting at is that it looks like someone tipped C.N.N. off early, almost as if that person was waiting for the event to happen.

Anything else, or anyone reporting close to the Pentagon would not have reported a fire, but at least an explosion. This smells, and not of daisies!

Quite possible, since washington and the Pgon were likely secondary targets, I think missing planes were reported on the news by then, tho maybe not. Maybe someone was just waiting to punce and had their finger on the dial button, eliminating the punch-in time and speeding the whole process up by a few seconds. It's a bit suspicous...

CNN we probably monitoring the fire dispatch, and heard the first crews that were responding to the automatic fire alarm, or possibly a call from the gate-house at the pentagon. With all that was going on, they would want to be first to report anything that happened, so would probably jump on a lead like that.

Or it could have been handed to them on a plate from some "source".

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Like anywhere from five to twenty seconds. The explosion was reported by everyone as very loud, audible for miles. All head would turn that way and see a smoke cloud within 30 sec for sure.

You fail to see my point or are ignoring it.

If it is true that the explosion was audible for miles, the person calling C.N.N. would have reported an explosion, and not a fire.

The report displayed at 09:40 EDT would have said: "EXPLOSION REPORTED AT PENTAGON" not "REPORTS OF FIRE AT PENTAGON"

I submit to you that noone near the Pentagon was the first one to report this to C.N.N., because the report would be different

I will go as far in saying that the person who notified C.N.N. was aware what was going to happen, and very shortly after the crash called it in, explaining the 2 minutes 52 seconds between the actual crash and the Breaking News report of a fire showing on national TV.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Truth4hire]

Originally posted by 2ciewan
CNN we probably monitoring the fire dispatch, and heard the first crews that were responding to the automatic fire alarm, or possibly a call from the gate-house at the pentagon.

Now this I can accept, still 2:52 is an awful short time to get an event on live national t.v. Very suspicious.

Good points T4h. What was even more amazing to me was the lack of news gathering skills displayed by CNN, FOX News, et al when the story first broke on the morning of 9/11. I was one of the ever dwindling number of fortunate citizens who tuned in during the opening moments that fateful Tuesday morning.

Amazingly, all of the networks were giving the 'all clear' for the WTC around 8:45AM, saying that there was absolutely no danger and it was buisiness as usual. That's right... then the most bizarre and damaging aspect of the broadcasts ...... reporters were trying to coax brokerage employees into (their coffins) the towers, saying a "busy trading day" was anticipated, and there was hardly anyone there to handle the transactions. The potential for handsome commissions was mentioned ad nauseum and specfic companies were urged to report for work. I saw it with my own eyes.

Of course the transcripts were severely altered and do not reflect the deadly dialogue of these '9/11 pied pipers'. Incredibly, this incriminating info seems to have been ignored in all accounts I can find after scouring the entire internet. There are numerous 9/11 timelines floating around, most claiming that the NYSE never opened that day. The opening bell certainly shouldn't have sounded...but who cares? Apparently not many of my fellow countrymen.

[edit on 3/25/2007 by HaveSeen4Myself]

I remember (vaguely) the reports of fire at the Pentagon preceding reports of an explosion followed closely by reports of a plane crash. The BBC reported this on BBC News 24.

I remember it because I thought the change from "fire" to "plane crash" was a bit odd. How did the original reporter miss a bloody great aircraft smacking into the side of the building???

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
How did the original reporter miss a bloody great aircraft smacking into the side of the building???

Easy...there was none..

I remember perfectly the "fire" at the Pentagon, and then ANOTHER FIRE at th eWhite House and a evac of the facilities.... that day was incredible, so much going on at once!, and then some hours later WTC7 colapses....

Piece by piece we are seeing thsi tragedy was carried out perfectly and the media played along, maybe they even had a script...