"Dick Eastman" <de1949@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message news:...
> From: jon utley <jbutley@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> Subject: America above the Law? Neocons, of course, that's their
> worldview + CACI (the "contract torturer) ties to Israel--CEO got award
>
>
> Again it's neocons wrecking good will for America in the
> world, the lawlessness comes from the Pentacons (Pentagon Neocons),
> remember when they told us that "It is a big mistake for us to grant
> any validity to international law even when it may seem in our
> short-term interest to do so -- because, over the long term, the goal of
> those who think that international law really means anything are those
> who want to constrict the United States." John Bolton (Asst. Secretary
> of State for International Organizations)
> <http://www.againstbombing.org/lucier.htm>
He's inflicted upon Powell to
> keep control of the State Dept, but all the top civilians in the
> Rumsfeld -- Cheney team are neocons,
>
>
>
> But a free press and American basic decency does expose our
> dirty linen, and makes us stronger and more honorable, to recover,
> eventually, our greatness and I don't mean the Neocons' concept of
> militarily ruling the world. The system does work. The humiliation of
> the Arabs comes from neocon thinking, just like that of Sharon, that if
> Arabs are just beat up enough, the will behave as proper servants in the
> occupied territories.
>
> It's a sort of Germanic-Russian thinking, very contrary to
> Arab (and Latin) psychology where a man's dignity is paramount, not
> matter how poor and miserable he may be. Justin Raimondo notes detailed
> ties between the company, CACI,
> <http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2477>
which hired the civilian
> "contract" torturers and Isreal's Likud. Indeed, he writes, hiring
> private contractors was a good way to "hide" Israelis advisors. Also
> the London Guardian
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1102940,00.html>
has
> published about the Army taking on Israeli "advisors." Only such a
> stupidity could come from the Neocons. But again it's their thinking,
> that humiliation and showing Iraqis that Israels are "helping" the U.S.
> is the way to show them that resistance is futile.
>
> Neo-Conservatives Welcomed 9-11
> <http://www.wa****ngtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58484-2004May1.html>
as
> giving "purpose" for an "imperial America" to "inspire Americans for
> empire" (Wash Post)
>
> Abuse of Prisoners Began with Rumsfeld-Cheney Policies
> <http://www.wa****ngtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64322-2004May3.html>
> that U.S. not subject Geneva Convention or international law
>
> As Seymour Hersh has pointed out
> <http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031215fa_fact>,
the U.S.-Israeli
> alliance has been taking covert shape in the course of this war:
> http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031215fa_fact
>
> "Israeli commandos and intelligence units have been working closely with
> their American counterparts at the Special Forces training base at Fort
> Bragg, North Carolina, and in Israel to help them prepare for operations
> in Iraq. Israeli commandos are expected to serve as ad-hoc advisers -
> again, in secret - when full-field operations begin."
>
> Evolving Disaster
> <http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040429-113745-2828r>
by Arnaud
> de Borchgrave http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040429-113745-2828r
>
> 60 Top U.S. ex-Diplomats Say Bush-Sharon Deal a Disaster for America
> <http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=2476>
> http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=2476
>
> Links above
> http://www.againstbombing.org/lucier.htm
> http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2477
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1102940,00.html
>
> =================
>
> The Abu Ghraib-Titan- 9/11 Connection (TortureGate vs. 9/11)
> By Sam Ewing (*continuing updates in Addendum)
> May 8
> (See also TortureGate -suspects still at work)
>
> The scandal of Abu Ghraib is currently only connected with 4 main
suspects,
> but how far do the tracks really go?:
>
> 2 members of the South Bend's 428th Military Police Company; and 2
employees
> of two private intelligence contractors:
> Titan Cor****ation and CACI.
>
> South Bend is a regular partner of the Intelligence Department of the
> Government.
>
> In October 2001, the unit was already mobilized for a Homeland Security
> mission at Fort Hood, Texas.
>
> Furthermore, Titan's connection with the "Torture-scandal" in Iraq shows
> another deeper connection with the Pentagon, than most people expect,
but
> also with the Intelligence and the "9/11 attacks"...
> full story...
> http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=165
>
> http://911skeptics.blogspot.com
> TortureGate- WW-Trigger or Counter Coup d'etat?
>
> http://physics911.org/net/modules/weblog/
>
> ==============
>
> Hate-driven and anti-Semitic? Or is the "small-plane" finding actually
> evidence driven and dead-on accurate?
>
> Decide for yourself. Here are the accusations and the facts.
>
> ------------
>
>
>
> With regard to Dick Eastman's shrill commentary over the last few days I
> wish to publicly thank Mark Robinowitz for his taking the time and doing
a
> good job of countering Eastman's assertions.
>
> Vince Suave
>
> ================================
> [Note: every word of Robinowitz's "critique" is included below and all
of
> it is answered too. -- DE]
>
> Mark Robinowitz wrote this in response to my "Best Proof" post.
>
> So far it is the only response I have received. Ruppert, Jared Israel,
> Rivero, Judge, Harvey, and Sarah Roberts so far have not chosen to
reply.
>
> Mark is not an investigator known to me, but I am grateful for the
chance
to
> engage with someone in a discussion of the small-plane evidence and the
> frame-up it exposes.
>
> > Mark Robinowitz (MR) posts:
> >
> > At 9:48 PM -0700 2004-05-10, sf911truthalliance@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>Dick Eastman [DE] posts:
> >>
> >>Subject: INDEX OF BEST EVIDENCE 9-11 Pentagon
> >
> >
> >
> DE:
> >> Please note that this is not a formal write-up, but merely
> > a memorandum to alert you to the existence of this body
> > of "best-evidence" information. Include several links to
> >> many formal write ups, such as those at Physics911.
> >
> >
>
> MR:
> >Physics 9/11 is a website that asserts that a missile caused
> > a plane like imprint on the WTC north tower. There are
> > numerous photos of the north tower that clearly show the
> > impact caused by large wings. This is so easy to debunk
> > that it raises serious questions about the intent (or
> > sanity) of the "missile attacked the WTC" advocates.
>
> DE:
> Well, Mark, then we agree that the WTC towers where hit
> by airliners. This to me is obvious. I am glad it is to you too.
> I speak of Physics911 merely as the place where Jim Hoffman
> and A.K.Dewdney have posted on the Pentagon, two
> "small-plane" theorists. I am not even familiar with the
> arguments that are made at that site about the WTC.
>
> MR:
> > Muddying the waters is an old tactic to confuse people
> > from looking at the most credible material.
>
> DE:
> Another point on which we are in strong agreement.
>
>
> DE:
> >>You have each denigrated the finding that the Boeing 757
> > overflew the Pentagon as a smaller aircraft, armed with
> > missiles, was cra****ng directly below. I am convinced
> > that in light of the following compilation of independent lines
> > of proof from a variety of evidence and testimony, that
> > your possition is not longer tenable.
> >
> MR:
> > I seriously doubt that Mr. Eastman has ever been to this area.
>
> DE:
> Now you can be certain. I never have had the honor of visiting
> our nation's capitol.
>
> MR:
> > If he had, he might realize that thousands of people would
> > have seen the overflight of this plane, since there are large
> > highways full of commuters, rapid rail line, and numerous
> > large office buildings full of military officials and contractors --
>
> DE:
> Thousands did not see the crash, so why should that number
> have seen the flyover? Many photos from different angles
> -- all of which I supply readers -- show the topography of
> the crime scene. And I have the account of three witnesses,
> each of whose observations figure in my conclusions (Lagasse,
> Faram, Riskus)
>
> MR:
> > many of them would have noticed the hitherto unprecedented
> > flight of a jet coming from the direction of the Pentagon in a
> > place that planes do not normally fly.
>
> DE:
> I have given the witnesses statements of those who noticed the
> plane coming in outside of the normal path of incoming airliners
> at Reagan National. You are right. Several did notice.
>
> And many saw the Boeing come in over the Sheraton Hotel, over
> the Naval Annex, over the Citgo gas station, over the head of
> the gardener cutting the grass along the southmost piece of
> Alrington Cemetery between the Annex and the gas station,
> There re****ted observation of the path of the Boeing as it
> approached the Pentagon rendevous is just one line of proof
> that the Boeing was not the killer jet. You see, if the plane
> came in over those locations then a) it could not have hit the
> first lamppost that was knocked down (which had been standing
> at the southest corner of the bridge in the center of the Pentagon
> parking access cloverleaf; and 2) it could not have come in at
> the 55-degree angle that civil engineers have identified as the
> angle at which the true killer jet made its first-floor entry.
>
> So these many witnesses where there, and their testimony
> sup****ts the "small-plane" finding.
>
> There is one point where I beg to differ. Very few saw the
> actual crash because
>
> 1) Wa****ngton Blvd. rises to allow the underpass to the
> parking area -- so that those who noticed the Boeing from
> the Columbia Pike and highway 395 could not see the
> first-floor level where the killer jet hit;
>
> 2) Most of the area west of the west wall is Arlington Cemetery,
> i.e., dead people;
>
> 3) Many were distracted by the act of driving -- and minds not
> expecting things often miss them, especially in a frame of
> just a few seconds.
>
>
> MR:
> > It is near National Air****t, but planes landing there don't pass that
> > direction. Also, they need more time to lower their landing gear -
> > planes need more than a mile to accomplish this.
>
> DE: This is true and it would be noticed by those who think about
> those things -- the cars headed East towards the 14th-street bridge
> would be used to landing jetliners at the bridge -- not everyone would
> have the presence of mind to think about a plane out of place in
> so short a time span, although some did. You are not saying anything
> that has not been taken into account and that has not been discussed
> hundreds of times.
>
> >
> DE:
> >>It would be most helpful to the world situation if you each would make
> > public retractions of your former misguided criticisms of these
> >>now-established findings.
>
> DE:
> Yes, they really should. I hope they do.
>
>
> DE:
> >>I am sure you realize how much misery in the world is
> > being prolonged because of resistance to these facts,
> >> owing to your earlier resistance.
>
> DE:
> Also true. Why do they hold back?
>
> MR:
> > No doubt it is all the fault of 9/11 skeptics who don't accept Mr.
> > Eastman's assertions based on questionable inference and in some
> > cases easily disproven material as gospel truth.
>
> DE:
> Actually, Mark, I was the sceptic -- the man sceptical about the
> official 9-11 story, and I then examined the evidence and confirmed
> by scepiticism and made my findings available to everyone. I
> debunked the fiction of the cra****ng Boeing -- but even more,
> the evidence itself does the debunking of the official version.
> I merely point to the pictures. The "small-plane" finding is entirely
> "data driven."
>
> You characterize my data-derived conclusions as "assertions." An
> assertion is a statement one makes about something that is
> in question. Far from "asserting," I am demonstrating something
> merely by pointing to the photographic evidence which tells
> exactly what happened simply by direct inspection. You know the
> drill: "Too-short a plane, visible missile smoke trail, inappropriate
> white flash and all the other impossible inconsistencies that
> disprove the official story.
>
> Also, when one "asserts" something to be true -- it means they
> state it to be true emphatically but without evidence. That most
> certainly is not the case here.
>
> MR:
> > Self-righteousness directed at one's ostensible allies is a poor
> > strategy for building alliances.
>
> Are you familiar with the history of the exchanges between Ron Harvey,
> Sarah Roberts, Mike Rivero, Jared Israel, Joe Vialls and myself?
>
> Harvey was calling me a whacko long before I even heard of him.
>
> Sarah Roberts likewise put up her site, not totally discredited,
> characteristically withdrawing for a period every time I pointed out
> an error -- such as having the Boeing make ten degrees of
> turn all while over the highway cloverleaf.
>
> Mike Rivero and I were cooperating together, exchanging views,
> when suddenly he accussed me of being an agent working
> against him, and cut off all communication -- refusing to look
> at the information I showed him -- and posting totally bogus
> and easily refutable brush-off arguements, which when I
> did expose them he would not own up to.
>
> And none of them ever engaged the key arguments presented
> point by point.
>
>
> DE:
> >>1. Pentagon security camera shows
> >> a. Too short a plane
> >> b. Smoke trail of a missile being fired
> >> c. White-hot flash explosion consistent with a missile warhead
> >
> MR:
> > This is from one of the participants in the 9/11 inquiry in SF ...
> >
> DE:
> And E=MC2 is from the writer of you high-school science book, right?
>
> The fact is that I am the first to have noted the missile trail on the
> internet.
> I am one of the first to remark on the white-hot initial explosion being
> inappropriate for an aluminum plane with kerosene hitting a brick,
concrete,
> limestone office building.
> I was the first with both arguments for the too-short plane:
>
> 1) The "Stegosaurus proof" of the parking pass machine in the forground
> only covering a length of not quite five tail fins in a row, when a
Boeing
> 757
> is longer than six tail fins would be aligned along its back; and
>
> 2) the fact that the plane in the security cam picture #1 is obviously
> shorter
> than the height of the Pentagon (71'ft.) like the F-16, whereas the
Boeing
> 757 is a tad over twice as long as the building is high (155 ft.)
>
> That should settle everying, right there. But people pretended not
> to get it, and so I looked for and found more than a half dozen other
> proofs that the Boeing did not crash.
>
>
> > I am aware that the five photos from the Pentagon
> > security camera are faked, but there are way more than
> > five photos. The earlier photos (and videos) that
> > appeared on television right after the hit are the ones
> > that clearly prove (to me) that no 757 hit the Pentagon.
>
> Your "awareness" is not good enough for me. I believe the Pentagon
> spokesman was not lying when he said that the pictures show
substantially
> what was in the originals. I believe that what they did was to select
only
> sequence shots that do not show the killer jet, being careful to pick
> exactly a shot where the plane is concealed behind the parking-pass
machine
> (except for the tail fin). The dates and times were modified to conceal
the
> fact that the selection of shots are not the complete sequence.
>
> People have made a lot of "discoloration" in the second shot -- but
this
> is the result of the bright "flash powder" effect of the white hot
> explosion -- it brightens the entire landscape, which reflects it in all
> directions -- doubtless to blind the observers for the two seconds
> necessary for the Boeing to "dissappear" behind the subsequent red and
> orange flames and the black smoke from the crash and jet fuel.
>
> All of this has been gone over again and again for the last since March
of
> 2002, when the video shots were released.
>
> MR:
> > My feeling has been all along that the faked photos were
> > released purposely to muddy the waters.
>
> DE:
> That's your feeling? Well, there is one thing, Dick Eastman cannot
disprove
> and which forces me to admit defeat : Disproving Mark Robinowitz's
feeling.
> What can I say? "All along," eh? And with that feeling did you ever
> experience curiosity about why Mssrs. Rumsfeld, Wolfowtiz, and Myers
might
>
> wish to "muddy the waters?" Or don't feelings ever yield analytical
next
> steps?
>
> MR:
> > The Pentagon
> > knew these photos would be picked up by skeptics as
> > "proof" and that they would also be easily dismissed by
> > others as fake (they even changed the date to September
> > 12th).
>
> DE:
> Gee. You seem to get right into their minds. But again, why would they
> take these evasive "muddying" measures? And why would they risk
detection
> in changing something critical -- where they would be liable. Don't you
> think they have lawyers (like Ted Olsen) advising them on how to
proceed?
> The released the true frame that happened not to show the small plane
that
> they did not want people seeing. REMEMBER -- THEY DID NOT RELEASE THESE
> PICTURES AT ALL, UNTIL THE FRENCH APPEARED TALKING ABOUT THE SMALL HOLE
AND
> STATING THAT THERE WAS "NO PLANE" -- they released these pictures under
> pressure -- showing us the only shot they could provide that showed
that
> there was a plane, but that did not show enough to determine what kind
of
> plane (or so they thought).
>
> MR:
> > But again, I am not basing my belief on these faked
> > photos, but rather on the earlier photos.
>
> DE:
> So Mark is a man with a belief!
>
> Are "beliefs" better than "assertions," Mark?
>
> At any rate, there are no earlier photos. Unless you mean,
> the photos that were made available to the public earlier,
> i.e., the photos taken by witnesses who had cameras in
> their cars or , like Faram, brought them down before the
> wall collapsed.
>
> MR:
> > Either way, though, they have certainly succeeded in
> > muddying the waters so much that you are probably right
> > it is better to focus on WHERE the Pentagon was hit.
>
> DE:
> I have seen and provided you all with all of the best photos,
> and from that evidence, arranged for the most informing juxtapositions,
> THE FACT IS THAT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY
> TELLS A CONSISTENT STORY -- EACH PIECE OF EVIDENCE,
> EACH PROOF DERIVED FROM THAT EVIDENCE SUP****TS,
> CORROBORATES, IS CONSISTENT WITH, CONFIRMS ALL
> THE OTHER PARTS.
>
> DE:
> Look at each of the numbered items 1 through 16 and you
> will see what I mean -- that is unless you let your "feelings"
> get in the way.
> >
>
> DE:
> >> witnesses re****ting the Boeing
> >> coming over the Sheraton Hotel, the
> >> Naval Annex, the Citgo gas station, and the southernmost
> >> extremity of Arlington National Cemetery -- an angle much
> >> closer to perpendicular to the wall)
> >
> DE:
> Damn! Am I good or what?
>
> MR:
> > I haven't heard of any witnesses who re****t a plane LEAVING from the
> > direction of the Pentagon, which is what the "two plane" theory
> > requires for it to be true.
>
> DE:
> Then you must be of the philosophic school which "asserts" that
> the tree does not make sound if it falls in a forest where no ears
> are there to hear it.
>
> Not me.
>
> If the audience of hundreds, does not see the flowers disappear into
> the hidden pocket sewn into the cape, that is not proof that the hidden
> pocket does not exist.
>
> And how much better the magicians of the CIA/MI6/Mossad when
> planning a black op as im****tant as this one?
>
> However, you are wrong. It so happens that one witness did say that
> he thought the plane went over the building.
>
> And the very first re****t on Wa****ngton D.C. radio stations was that
> a jetliner had crashed on the 14th street bridge.
>
> And the very first call to the air****t firemen was that a jetliner
> had crashed on a runway at the north end air****t.
>
> ^
> S
> < E + W >
> N
> v
>
> AIR****T
>
>
> ============ * lamppost #1
> BRIDGE PENTAGON [] Citgo N. Annex
> Sheraton
>
>
> ARLINGTON CEMETERY
>
>
> DE:
> >>7. Witnesses also
> >>
> >> a. heard a missile
> >>
> >> b. heard a sonic boom prior to blast
> >>
> >> c. smelled burning chordite after the blast
> >
> MR:
> > Some also smelled jet fuel, for what that is worth. Perhaps the
> > zionists ran around and poured jet fuel to confuse people.
> >
> DE: Ah! I see the game. No point in discussing further is there.
> Got some Zionists in the family, do you, Mark? Thinking that
> it might be uncomfortable for them if the link to Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz
> were made too clear? Don't you trust the truth as the
> best anti-sceptic for human problems?
>
> Tell me true, Mark -- do you think it would be bad for
> Jewish people if it was proved that Rumsfled-Wolfowitz-Perle-Sharon
> were proven to be the perpetrators of 9-11?
>
> Would you even allow yourself to entertain that possibility?
>
> Jared Israel has made his choice? He will not engage the
> evidence honestly. Now what about you?
>
>
> MR:
> > A much more sensible and accurate commenator, Fletcher Prouty, wrote
in
>
> DE:
> I thought Prouty died before 9-11 happened?
>
> You are accusing me of being "less accurate" than someone here, Mark.
> Name my inaccuracy. Name one case where I have not corrected position
> the second new data has come to hand (like about the existence of downed
> lampposts or the angle of the hole in "c"-ring what that first became
> known on the internet?
>
> You need to state an innacuracy in any of my Pentagon presentation -
> or I will have to consider this a deliberate misrepresentation.
>
> MR:
> > [Fletcher Prouty, wrote in]
> > "the Secret Team" that covert operations that are successful are kept
> > small and relatively simple.
>
> DE:
> He was right. The 9-11 frame-up caper was a fiasco all the way.
> Only you and Jared Israel disagree. They got too cock-sure of
> their technology. Same mistake they made in Iraq. Not too swift.
>
> Buy the way, why did you start this group if you won't accpt the
> best evidence of a frame-op?
>
> > The more elaborate theories of 9/11 tend
> > to be those with less evidence and are more difficult to show how
they
> > could have been what happened.
>
> You mean Webfairy's Holograms at the WTC , based on the blurry fireman
> video.
>
> Are you really trying to say that detectives concluding the
"small-plane"
> attack
> use less evidence than other people? Are your serious -- or are you
hoping
> that just saying it will make people believe it, regardless of the fact
that
> it is
> very well known to be the exact opposite of the fact.
>
>
> DE:
> Would you consider yourself a Zionist, Mark?
>
> Would a Zionist, allow himself agree with the small-pane thesis, even
> if he suspect that it was probably true? even if he were convinced
> rationally based on conclusive evidence that it was true?
>
> MR:
> > Mr. Eastman does not seem interested in mentioning what is 100%
> > provable and undisputed -- the fact the Pentagon was hit in the
> > nearly empty part, preferring to focus on the unprovable and disputed
> > claims of what did or did not hit the Pentagon (but without any
> > primary evidence to back up his theories).
>
> DE:
> Aren't my posts long enough without mentioning what is undisputed?
> And have your really read my 300,000 posts on the newsgroups and
> e-lists to say that I don't mention that the "wedge" that was hit was
> rennovated???
>
> And of course what you say is not true. I have often written about
> the renovation. I have suggested that the rennovation made it
> easier for Mr. Rumsfeld , Mr. Wolfowitz, Gen Myers, Mr. Perle,
> Mr. Kissinger, Mr. Gingrich and other masterminds at the Pentagon
> just prior to 9-11, to plan exactly who they wanted in the new
> section and who they did not. They just gave orders for the
> people they wanted dead to be moved to the targeted area.
>
> NOW IF YOU REPLY TO THIS LETTER AT ALL I INSIST THAT
> YOU EXPLAIN TO EVERYONE HOW YOU CAME BY YOUR
> CONCLUSION THAT I DON'T MENTION THE FACT OF THE
> RENOVATION -- WHEN I DID SO ONLY A FEW DAYS AGO,
> AND WHEN I HAVE RE****TED IT AND DISCUSSED IT
> WITH OTHER INVESTIGATORS AGAIN AND AGAIN
> SINCE EVEN BEFORE THE SECURITY VIDEO PICS
> WERE RELEASED (I.E. BEFORE MARCH 2002)
>
> SO HOW DID YOU SAMPLE MY WRITINGS TO JUSTIFY
> THIS ACCUSATION THAT I DON'T MENTION THIS ITEM?
>
> The fact that the wedge was under rennovation suggests many
> possibilities and is suspicious cir***stantial evidence --
> but it is not the conclusive evidence that a grand jury
> would be impressed with. It doesn't directly point to anyone
> and it doesn't establish method or motive -- except insofar
> as IF THEY WERE TARGETING ONLY ONE PART OF
> THE BUILDING -- A BUILDING IN WHICH RUMSFELD
> WAS GOING TO BE WHEN THE ATTACK OCCURED,
> THEN THEY WOULD WANT A MORE PRECISION MEANS
> OF ATTACK -- THE F-16 AND THE MISSILES IT FIRED --
> RATHER THAN CRA****NG A CLUMSY BOEING 757
> WHICH MIGHT SEND AN ENGINE FLYING OVER UNTO
> RUMSFELD'S LAP.
>
> But that is just speculation. I like to stick with the incontestable
> hard evidence that does not require much deduduction, just
> simple inspection of the data to reach the obvious conclusion.
>
> MR:
> > I wouldn't hire him to be a professional investigator for a lawsuit.
>
> DE:
> I agree. You wouldn't.
>
> I'll have to remember that argument. When someone is arguing
> something, make it known that people like him are not going to
> be hired because of what they argue. I admit this intimidation
> can be very effective with certain types of people.
>
> Where did you learn that trick?
>
> DE:
> >>11. The attack was made almost horizontally into the first-floor
> >> level -- consistent with a countour-hugging jet-fighter attack
> >
>
> RM:
> > or a 757 being operated by remote control flight systems
>
>
> DE:
> No. The Boeing is just not responsive enough. The Boeing could
> get down to flying level at two or three feet above the ground
> after coming down from the seventeen-floorhotel, the five-floor
> Annex, and the rise in Wa****ngton Blvd. It would be impossible
> for that plane to skim that close -- in perfect horizontal flight
> across the lawn -- -- no one would risk hitting the lawn
> and skidding in -- the remote control could not add to the
> existing performance capabilites of the aircraft .
>
> SO HERE IS A SECOND POINT ON WHICH I WANT A CLEAR
> ACCOUNTING FROM YOU -- WHAT WAS IN YOUR HEAD,
> WHAT INFORMATION WHERE YOU APPEALING TO, WHEN
> YOU "ASSERTED" THAT THE 757 COULD PERFORM THIS
> AMAZING FEAT OF COMING DOWN OFF THOSE BUILDINGS
> ON THE HILL AND OVER THAT RISE IN THE HIGHWAY
> AND THEN DIP DOWN SO THAT THE ENGINES ARE
> THE HEIGHT OF A DOG'S BACK IN PERFECT HORIZONTAL
> FLIGHT BEFORE THE PLANE HAS TRAVERSED HALF
> WAY ACROSS THE LAWN (AS SHOWN BY THE VIDEO
> CAMERA).
>
> IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT WAS THE BASIS OF YOUR LAST
> STATEMENT? WHAT INFORMATION DID YOU HAVE TO
> JUSTIFY THAT STATEMENT -- WHICH I SAY IS FALSE
> AND WHICH RALPH OMHOLT WHO FLEW THE 757
> SAYS IS FALSE.
>
> By the way, where are your responses to my points, 2, 3, 5, 6,
> 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15???? Am I to assume that you agree
> with those proofs?
>
> DE:
> >>14. The various drills and practices for an air attack on the Pentagon
> >> including some kind of simulation on 9-11-01 itself, coupled with
> >> denials that such an attack had been considered possible.
>
> MR:
> > That doesn't prove Eastman's theories on the "two planes" theory.
>
> DE: You misunderstand the purpose of the 16 proofs. They prove that
> the Pentagon top leader****p had to have been complicit in 9-11. The
> lies about not having considered such an attack as possible and
> the scenario practices that took place proving otherwise, demonstrate
> top leader****p complicity. The "small-plane" finding (killer jet, plus
> Boeing overfly), established in the first three points (actually there
> are four proofs of the small plane thesis in the very first point,
> above, which is then used to prove Rumsfeld complicity.
>
> I should have made that clearer.
>
> DE:
>
> >>"responsible" 9-11 investigators
> >>think is a John Judge who is working for the coverup, for
>
> MR:
> > This is reminiscent of cointelpro type tactics, and it either a sign
of
> > extreme obnoxiousness (mere disagreement on a detail does not
> > constitute corruption) or deliberate effort to sow dissension.
>
> DE:
> This is reminiscent of cointelpro type tactics, a deliberate effort to
> sow dissension.
>
> I know you are aware that John Judge kicked off the "People's
Investigation
> of 9-11" with the declaration that the P.I.of911 would not waste
time
> with obvious wastes of time, like the thesis that the Boeign did not
crash,
> wherein he wrote me and Bosankoe and Fescado and all the rest of us
> out of the investigaton and refused to allow the subject to be opened.
> When I called them on it, Carol Brouillet assured me that she would
> see to it personally that the Pentagon attack would be brought up --
> I sent two packets of evidence (most of what you have before you
> in my latest package to this forum) -- and sure enough Brouillet
> and Judge never did open the discussion of the Pentagon evidence,
> of the Bosankoe evidence, as I was calling it calling it at the time.
>
> Judge was calling me irresponsible and putting pressure on
> other investigators to dissaccociate themselves from me -- and
> that before I even had any contact with him or knew who he was.
>
> And when I answered a statement of his in every particular,
> exposing the utter impossibility and ludicrousness of his story
> about his flight attendant friend and challenged him to respond --
> here merely withdrew from the field -- writing only in forums that
> I do not post in, that are denied to me. etc.
>
> Even now, you will notice that Judge has not answered my call
> to repudiate his position or defend it.
>
> The only one to come out and engage any of my points, man to man,
> has been you, Mark, for which I thank you.
>
> OK, what happens next?
>
> Dick Eastman
> Yakima, Wa****ngton
>
> ===========================
>
> > Vince Sauve posts:
> >
> > With regard to Dick Eastman's shrill commentary over the last few days
I
> > wish to publicly thank Mark Robinowitz for his taking the time and
doing
a
> > good job of countering Eastman's assertions.
> >
>
>
> DE reponse:
>
> Readers will note that Mr. Sauve is referring to Mr. Robinowitz's first
> response to my evidence index.
>
> Mr. Robinowitz failed to oppose any evidence or to point out any
deductive
> error.
>
> Readers can verify that far from an "anti-Semitic diatribe," the
> "small-plane" finding is entirely data driven -- as if it was me and
not
> the Zionists who are killing all the Semites (Arabs) lately.
>
> Note that it is I who present evidence to this list for peer review --
and
> it is Mark who has made my style, my politics an issue -- as if being
> anti-Zionist nullifies any empirical fact I may point out.
>
> Mark, failed to scratch the four of my sixteen that he addressed --
perhaps
> he would like to try his luck on the other proofs.
>
> Here are my 16 points, lest anyone forget them:
>
> Dear Citizen,
>
> Here is the multiple lines of "best-evidence" implicating the United
States
> Pentagon leader****p in the "9-11" attack on the Pentagon itself.
>
> I believe that there is no more effective way to end the violent and
> criminal Anglo-American foreign policies than by exposing with multiple
> lines of photographic and other hard evidence establi****ng the
complicity,
> the active involvement, of top civilian leader****p of the US military
in
> the deadly attack on the Pentagon of 11 September, 2001.
>
> I give you the following evidence links and an index of the proofs found
> therein.
>
> I will not be writing to you again, although I am at your service
> individually, should you have questions about any of the following.
>
> Please note that this is not a formal write-up, but a memorandum to
alert
> you to the existence of this body of "best-evidence" information. The
> pages include links to many authoritative formal write ups, such as
those
> at Physics911.com.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Richard P. Eastman M.S., M.A.
> de1949@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ===================================
>
> Here is the critical information needed to derive an informed
> opinion of what really happened on at the Pentag on
> September 11, 2001:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
>
> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/Eastman/m18h05.html
>
> INDEX OF PROOF
>
> 1. Pentagon security camera shows
> a. Too short a plane
> b. Smoke trail of a missile being fired
> c. White-hot flash explosion consistent with a missile warhead
>
> 2. Photos show wrong crash imprint in the wall
>
> 3. Photos show and wrong flash-powder burn darkening the wall
>
> 4. Downed lampposts and witness consensus each identify
> a different approach path to the Pentagon, the Boeing's
> and the killer jet's and they are mutually incompatible --
> (path of sighted Boeing also inconsistent with civil
> engineers re****ted "50 degree- angle of entry" -- witnesses
> re****ting the Boeing coming over the Sheraton Hotel, the
> Naval Annex, the Citgo gas station, and the southernmost
> extremity of Arlington National Cemetery -- an angle much
> closer to perpendicular to the wall)
>
> 5. Wrong kind of debris
>
> 6. Single piece of right kind of debris shown to have been
> found on the opposite side of the approach path from
> the side of the plane where that particular piece had
> to have come from.
>
> 7. Witnesses also
>
> a. heard a missile
>
> b. heard a sonic boom prior to blast
>
> c. smelled burning chordite after the blast
>
> d. saw a radar blip behaving like a jet-fighter blip
>
> 8. No photos of wreckage from inside consistent with the crash
>
> 9. Evidence of only one engine and one seat , a pilots seat.
>
> 10. A distraction plane, a four- engine plane making dives
> over D.C. both photographed, videotaped and shown
> on BBC, and re****ted (erroneously) by many wintesses
> as the actual plane "diving at an irrecoverable angle)
>
> 11. The attack was made almost horizontally into the first-floor
> level -- consistent with a countour-hugging jet-fighter attack
>
> 12. Normal rescuers were prevented from entering the building
> while only certain people, including Rumsfeld himself, conducted
> (screened) victims from the building
>
> 13. Rumsfeld had recently been given exclusive power to
> OK air interceptions -- and yet he was in his office the whole
> time the twin towers were hit, and when the Pentagon was
> hit he went to oversee "rescue" instead of going to the situation
> room where his interception authority could be given -- he
> arrived at the situation room at about the time the Pennsylvania
> plane (backup for the Pentagon) was finally shot down.
>
> 14. The various drills and practices for an air attack on the Pentagon
> including some kind of simulation on 9-11-01 itself, coupled with
> denials that such an attack had been considered possible.
>
> 15. Impossible stories by, for example, John Judge (regarding
> his amazing stewardess friend who claims to have seen the
> Boeing inside the hole, recognized the plane as the one she
> always flew, recongized her stewardess friend as a victim by
> a photo of her severed arm with the matching "friend****p
> bracelett" they both wore; that she was passing out
> doughnuts and coffee to the rescue workers with the salvation
> army when the salvation army was nowhere in evidence at the
> scene -- John Judge who is a professional JFK conspiracy
> theory debunker and discloses that this same stewardess
> friend is also a JFK theory investigator, the same
> John Judge who launched the phony "People's Investigation
> of 9-11 with a press conference by stating that the Pentagon
> attack is not something responsible investigators should bother
> investigating etc. since we "know" the Boeing hit the Pentagon
> and don't want to be a laughing stock etc. -- the People's
> investigation that never once reviewed any of the evidence
> packages I posted to them -- the same John Judge who to this
> day refuses to debate Dick Eastman on any internet forum and
> whom all -- dare I use the term -- "responsible" 9-11
investigators
> think is a John Judge who is working for the coverup, for
> obstruction of justice, and because he does it so badly is himself
> become one of the proofs of the frameup along with the known-
> only-to himself flight attendant who works one of the flights that
> most definitely had to have been regularly monitored by
> US intelligence operatives, probably flight attendents, and
> this one just happened not to take Flight 77 that day by
> happenstance etc. -- so how about it, Mr. Judge?
>
> 16. The deaths of only the CIA's indepdendent intelligence
> revivals , the Offices of Naval Intelligence personel, and
> auditors of defense spending contracts etc. alone moved
> into the "newly renovated" section that was hit -- on the side
> where most of the witnesses would be the Arlington Cemetery
> dead or people involved with driving their cars. Naval Intelligence
> would have independently investigated 9-11 had they lived --
> the investigator that no official has yet conducted -- Wolfowitz
> sure bin Laden had done it and ready with the solution of invading
> Afganistan on the very first day -- even as they were allegedly
> taken by complete suprise only a few hours before that
> determination.
>
>
> See the evidence photos and witness testimony confirming all of the
> above and further analysis in sup****t of these conclusions by
> internationally respected American men of science here:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
>
> and here
>
> http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/Eastman/m18h05.html
>
> Dick Eastman
> Yakima, Wa****ngton
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
