from major debate on the Pentagon 911 evidence at cia-drugs
(rivero-hopsicker founded) -- Eastman's findings winning!
To quickly familairize yourself with key evidence establi****ng the
"small-plane" finding (and discrediting the "Boeing-did-it" disinfo-op
go
to the second most visited Pentagon site on the web which is carrying
Eastman's compilation of evidence:
http://www.bedoper.com/eastman
=======
Readers will find clarification of this issue from the following debate
between Freder Grot and Bob of cia-drugs -- "Bob" at cia-drugs works
with Desmoulins and Ron Harvey in a relentless struggle to hold back the
"small-plane" finding from public awareness. Grot is ...er ...
blablabla.
=============
Grot -- a Senhor San kind of guy -- debates with Bob at cia-drugs (the
Rivero-Hopsicker yahoogroups from which Dick Eastman, poor soul, is
banned).
Mr. Grot argues well and in the familiar style of the "small-plane"
school.
Mr. Bob is remarkable also. He boasts of working with Desmoulins and of
knowing one of the witnesses (see below), the one who saw the Boeing fly
over her house from her kitchen window -- AND he knows someone who was on
Flight 77! (Note the similarity to John Judge who knows an awful lot of
people involved with Flight 77 too -- John is a proven disinfo-prop for
the
cover-up according to a majority of investigators who conclude
"not-the-Boeing"-- in the coincidene of all the key people he knows --
plus
the general elitist view that it is not what you know in thei world but
who
you know that counts in winning legal, political and forensic contests.)
And of course Desmoulins has works closely with Ron Harvey who in fact
ghost
writes much of his material as obviously as the wrong nose on bin Laden's
video face. Incidentally -- knowing some one who was on Flight 77 is no
help to someone seeking to debunk the small-plane finding -- because if
several agents were involved in 911 they all need to be re-assigned and
the
best way of re-assigning them would be to "kill them off" in a airliner
crash that never happened -- kill them off in FLight 77 which landed at
Reagan National -- and you will note that Ann Judge who works for
National
Geographic (is she still getting her checks?) in finding places for Nat.
Geographic photographers and writers to stay when on assignment around the
world -- the perfect CIA cover (the Geographic is headquartered in
Wa****ngton DC) to locating agents around the world and for re-locating
"victims" of Flight 77 etc. -- so when Bob knows these witnesses who saw
the plane before the crash (oh, wow, less than three dozen saw the Boeing
approach its flyover point at the Pentagon -- what are the odds? that
Bob
would now be telling us this now -- when he was not telling us this a
year
or two years ago back when Quig and Eastman were at cia-drugs arguing the
same evidence? And certainly if Bob is in communication with Desmoulins
and
Desmoulins is in constant contact with Ron Harvey, then Sarah Roberts --
too
burned by exposure to want to show her face -- is probably working with
all
three of them. Just one of Senhor San's mystical intuitions -- but
perhaps
time will tell.
Now -- on to the debate!
"Senhor San"
Shangra-la, Wa****ngton
From: Grot <olfriend@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
To: cia-drugs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tuesday, July 20, 2004 1:06 AM
Subject: Re: [cia-drugs] Pentagon wall laughably flimsy 911
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob
To: cia-drugs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Monday, July 19, 2004 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: [cia-drugs] Pentagon wall laughably flimsy 911
> Wall details provided by me show that no DU penetrator or
> shaped charge or cruise missile or fighter jet were needed for
> the 5-10,000 gallons of jet fuel in the belly tank to punch the
> small hole shown in photos of the Pentagon west wall
You are saying that hurling the tank of kerosene can make a hole as well
as
the other militry staples you mention. No one contests that.
I am saying that a Boeing cra****ng with its nose hitting at the 14th
column
necessarily would have had to have also its starboard wing engine making a
sizable hole at column 16, or somewhere betwen columns 16 and 18, but
take
a look:
http://bedoper.com/eastman/no_engine_hit_between__16an.jpg
> by many witnesses whose accounts you can find on the internet as
DesMoulins
Desmoulins calls the key witness, a Pentagon police sergeant a liar,
because Sgt Lagasse's oft repeated statement of seeing the Boeing
fuselage pass north of him so that he could see the row of starboard
windows -- this is the critical location-establi****ng witness --
because
Lagasse's observations place the plane too far north to have
possibly brought down the pole southwest of the overpass, that
we know was downed by the actual killer jet. This is perfect
proof -- perfectly consistent with those witnesses who place the
Boeing directly over the Sheraton, directly over the Annex and
over the head of the Arlington Cemetery gardener who was
cutting grass along the road in the tiny piece of cemetery that
lies between the gas station and the Annex.
Desmoulins has omitted key witnesses and taken others out of context.
In contrast read these witness accounts:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagonconspiracy/message/71
> has done and collected at his site--he is not solely
> author of all witness accounts and photos as this
> obfuscator "Grot" seems to allege in the following trifling
attempt at "killing the messenger" to divert the numerous
> "messages" of each witness and photo brought to you by
> "messenger" DesMoulins and by so many others as to
> expose this transparent attempt at "killing a messenger"
> to distract from a "message" or "messages"--
You didn't say anything, Bob.
> Grot wrote:
>
>> I think you are placing too much reliance on one
>> investigator, Bob.
>
> Killing one messenger who to spike his message, a
> multitude of photos and witness accounts able to
> speak for themselves?
Desmoulins calls witness Lagasse liar. Desmoulins calls the
released security camera video a fake. Eastman more
than anyone else reconciles all witnesses with the physical
evidence. This is acknowledged in Griffen's book,
911 The New Pearl Harbor, easily the best investigation
of 911 to date.
> You rely overly on pseudo-investigators Dick Eastman
> and Webfairy.
It was Eastman who discredited the "whatzit" and the
"holograms" and the airliner with a hump or "missile packs"
-- and in fact you are taking the Webfairy position
against Eastman -- ignoring the witnesses and throwing
out the photos. But Eastman adds nothing to the photos,
he just points out what is in them -- and that is enough.
> I furnished DM with links to some photos and witnesses then used by
DesMoulins on his site,
Then you, Desmoulins and Ron Harvey are working together? Why didn;t you
furnish your photos to Professor Longspaugh, or Dr. Dewdney, or Hoffman,
or
Holmgren, or Brad M? What made you decide that Desmoulin's was the
investigator worthy of your exclusive help????
> but rather than rely overly on either of us, or posit a
> messenger-killing non sequitur about over reliance on
> one analyst, just look at the photos and listen to real
> people who were there.
You say it, you advise it -- but you don't do it yourself. I do. And if
you had really looked at the URLs I provided last time you would know that
Desmoulins hasn't got it and knows he hasn't got it yet fakes it anyway,
with your help.
I deplore the fact that you are dealing with a man, Desmoulins, who
withholds witness accounts from you, who will select only those photos
that
agree with his targeted (rather than discovered) conclusion.
I submit that readers can determine immediately that not only has
Desmoulins
withheld witness accounts contradicting his claims (even calling witnesses
liars -- witnesses who believe -- as far as they know -- the offical
account!!!) -- BUT THAT DESMOULINS HAS NOT EVEN
ADDRESSED ONE OF EASTMAN'S PROOFS -- HE HAS
JUST PUT UP A SITE THAT AVOIDS THE TOPIC AND
OMITS THE EVIDENCE -- THAT TELLS HIS VERSION
OF THE STORY AND SIMPLY IGNORES THAT HIS
STORY RUNS CONTRARY TO WITNESSES AND PHOTOS.
HERE ARE THE PHOTOS THAT INSTANTLY PROVE
THE "NOT-THE-BOEING THESIS" -- THESE PHOTOS
ARE ALL THAT IS NEEDED TO DOUBLY DISPROVE
THE LIE -- AND SERVE AS A LITMUS TO YOUR OWN
SINCERITY AND INTEGIRTY, BOB.
http://www.bedoper.com/eastman
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/3
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/Eastman/m18h05.html
> I know Mrs. Medina on Courthouse Road, Arlington, who saw
> the American Airlines Boeing 757 pass over her head as she
> stood at her kitchen sink.
I remember this one. She looked up and saw the bottom view
of the tail going over her house, the window facing west the
Pentagon east of her. She did not identify the type of plane.
She did not see the crash. Amazing that you say you know
her, though. (Why weren't you telling people this months
ago when you were arguing with Eastman?) Can I have
her phone number -- I am not a rude person, I just want
to confirm where on Courthouse Road her house is -- to
determine whether it the attack jet (if her house is south
of Columbia Pike) or the Boeing (if north of Columbia Pike)
-- because if her house is south of the pike she is
yet one more "Small-plane" star witness like Lagasse and
Riskus and all those who saw the Boeing directly over
the Naval Annex Building.
> I knew Rodney Dickens who was on the plane.
Well what has he told you about what happened?
Or is this a digression into irrelevancies?
> Mrs. Medina and the VDOT employees and
> the woman at the Sheraton Park hotel all concur in their
> accounts of an American Airlines Boeing 757 cra****ng
> into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. The VDOT
> and Sheraton
Look at their statements -- they are affirming their
belief based on what they have been told, what everyone
was saying -- but they did not see it hit the building.
They saw the Boeing go overhead, over their shoulder,
etc. and then there was the explosion -- they made
a deductive leap -- but they did not see the crash.
Remember, what the witnesses think happened has
been conditioned by what they heard afterwards --
seeing the Boeing headed that way and then hearing
the explosion and later seeing the smoke rising
is not the same as seeing the crash. In this case,
the plane went right up to the Pentagon and
disappeared in a flash -- with the morning sun
directly over the scene in the eastern sky.
With such circumstantial sup****t a witness can
leap to the conclusion of cause and effect -- but
in this case that is not good enough -- they did
not see it and it did not happen.
Got phone numbers or e-mail addresses for
any of these other witnesses? Perhaps
they would care to clarify for us exactly what
they saw versus what they assumed or
received from news accounts after the event.
If they don't want to talk to me, then perhaps
you can pass on my questions for them
and relay back their answers. Will you? I
think you will be surprised at how little you
understand of what the witnesses say they
saw.
Don't let us down, now, Bob. This is im****tant.
> The two Rolls Royce turbofan engine parts are from
> a turbofan compressor, according to a Pratt and
> Whitney spokesman.
Of course the turbofan engine parts are from a
turbofan engine. Just as the piece of AA Boeing 767
aluminum skin with a fragment of the letter "n" from
the name "American" on it was from a real Boeing
757 -- except that it was found on the lawn north
of the crash when it is definitely from the starboard
side of the plane, i.e., and the starboard side of
the "killer" plane faced south as it approached the
crash point. Which means that if one piece of
a 757 was planted, then a second piece, a piece
from a Rolls Royce Engine could have been planted
as well -- remember, those interior pictures were
taken by FEMA three days after the crash.
And has the piece been identified precisely as
the 166.4kN (37,400 lb st) Rolls-Royce
RB.211-535C engine or was it from some other
turbofan (if it is not the 211-535C then that is
a new proof of the hoax -- if it is a piece of a
211-535C then, based on the Eastman proofs
which neither you nor Desmoulins have touched
yet, then it looks like we have caught another
case of planted false evidence.
> You are trifling to whine for a Rolls Royce spokesperson.
Disinformation types often accuse those they are trying to discredit
of "whining." Also you are accusing me of asking for
a Rolls Royce spokesperson which, although a damn good idea,
I never did. BUT GET THE IM****TANT POINT -- THE
ESSENTIAL FACT IN THIS ARGUMENT:
THE PRESENCE OF A ROLLS ROYCE ENGINE PART
DOES NOT ADDRESS THE EASTMAN PROOFS AND,
AT THE SAME TIME, NEITHER DOES IT AMOUNT
TO A PROOF ON ITS OWN, SINCE EVEN THE RIGHT
ENGINE PART COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN PLANTED
IN THE THREE DAYS BEFORE THE PICTURE WAS
TAKEN.
> American Airlines 757's have Rolls Royce engines and other
> 757's have P&W turbofans, but so what?
This is not true and I never said it or suggested it. Why do you
load me up with your false attributions of statements that aren't
true -- are you hoping to stick a flasehood on me of your
own connivance??? "So what?," indeed!
> You're trifling.
No. You made up the trifle and attributed wrongly to me, then
accuse me of trifling when it is you who concocted the triffle and
disingenously attributed it to me.
> Look at the diagrams and photos of that model of Rolls
> Royce engine instead of relying overly on Dick Eastman
> and Webfairy.
Another dirty trick -- I have never brought up "Webfairy",
in no post have I ever mentioned her much less agreed with
her -- and I don't agree with her. You are attempting to
discredit me by wrongly associating me in the readers' mind
with discredited Webfairy whose fantastic views of holograms
and UFOs I have never held and never discussed. AND
THAT TELLS US SOMETHING ABOUT YOU, BOB!
> I was able to find a Pratt and Whitney jet engine spokesman
> who gave his opinion that this photo
> http://www.sitbot.net/im/pentagon_plane_part.jpg
> is that of a jet engine compressor part (though the engines on
> the Pentagon plane were Rolls-Royce, not P&W, that seemed to be
> a fairly authoritative answer about a generic type of turbofan part).
See above. Recap: He says, according to you above, it was "a jet
engine compressor" -- he did not say it was the compressor from
the RR RB.211-535C engine -- and if it was there is nothing proven
because there would be three days to plant the piece before the picture
was taken -- and we have caught them planting a false 767 piece on
the lawn. (Desmoulins says nothing about that does he? It's swept under
the carpet on his site, as are all of the conclusive "small-plane"
explanation
proofs -- and I mean PROOFS!!!
> Jean-Pierre Desmoulins has found other distinctive Rolls-Royce
> parts in Pentagon crash photos. Some Boeing 757's have P&W
> engines but American Airlines 757's have Rolls-Royce engines.
You claim that, and as I am learning, your claims, like those of
Desmoulins,
carry zero weight -- however it has long been determined that the
particular
Boeing 757-200 #N644AA did have the RR RB.211-535C engine.
You see Desmoulins is piddling around looking for tidbits that prove
nothing. Eastman has six proofs that stand on their own and are
conclusive.
Desmoulins looks for new pieces piece when pieces are easily planted, when
there wasplenty of time to plant them (if they were not packed into the
small-plane
killer plane to be found later!) AND WHEN THE PLANTING OF FALSE
EVIDENCE HAS IN ONE CASE ALREADY BEEN PROVEN -- AND
PROVEN MEANS THAT IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THAT IS THE CASE
AND NO OTHER EXPLANATION IS POSSIBLE.
Hey, this is an im****tant claim of mine, and all readers need to verify
it:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/70
Also, I like the honest and complete treatment of the turbofan piece
given
by Jerry Russell and Richard Stanely:
http://www.911-strike.com/pentagon-all.htm
> Look at this site if you would like to be reassured
> that a real plane crashed into the Pentagon 9/11/2001.
A real plane did crash into the Pentagon -- a plane under 70 ft in
length,
a plane with one engine in the fuselage. It was a plane that did not
leave
the "imprint" of a Boeing 757 in that there was no hole in the wall for a
starboard engine -- there is no damage above the second floor that would
have been made by a 767 tail fin that would have reached half way up the
fourth floor -- not even a broken window or chiped piece of limstone on
the
third or fourth floors -- whereas the tail fin of the small plane that
actually crashed is what took out pillar #14 on the second floor. THE
SMALL PLANE FITS THE DATA, FOR EXAMPLE, AND F-16, WHILE THE BOEING 757 IS
NOT ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT SIMPLY COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED SO LITTLE DAMAGE
ABOVE THE SECOND FLOOR AND TO THE RIGHT WHERE SO OBVIOUSLY NO BIG
STARBOARD
WING ENGINE EVER HIT.
> Desmoulins has found many eyewitness accounts which confirm with what my
two on site
witnesses said consistent with explosions in addition to the initial
plane
crash.
You are talking here about what people heard, not what they saw. Eastman
has a witness that Desmoulins leaves out, and that witnesses re****ted
hearing a sonic boom. And the driver of the black taxi told a researcher
that he heard a second explosion. BUT REMEMBER THAT
TWO EXPLOSIONS FITS THE MISSILE + CRASH
EXPLANATION, BUT ALSO IS CONSISTENT WITH
MISSILE PLUS CRASH PLUS INTERIOR CHARGES
FOR GOOD MEASURE -- SO YES, PLANTED CHARGES
MAY ALSO HAVE FIGURED, BUT WHETHER THEY
CAN BE ESTABLISHED OR NOT, THEY DO NOT AFFECT
THE PROOF ALREADY ESTABLISHED OF THE SMALLER-
THAN-THE-BOEING ATTACK CRAFT WHICH FIRED A
MISSILE AHEAD OF ITS OWN CRASH AS THE BEOING
THAT EVERYONE WAS WATCHING DISAPPEARED
OVER THE PENTAGON.
> That sounds like script fulfilment which we also saw at WTC911 and
OKCbomb.
If you mean that the bombs were planted to be sure to get the job done, in
case the missiles and cra****ng plane failed to do the job or to further
destroy evidence after the crash was effected -- you may be right --
that
possibility does not affect the small-plane proof that Longspaugh,
Dewdney,
Eastman, Brad M, Physics911, or 911-strike.com (Richard Stanley and
Jerry
Russell) have so thoroughly established.
===================
To verify that Bob is wrong when he claims that I endorse Webfairy's
views,
when I did not mention them at all and certainly do not agree with them.
Also verify that I did not "whine for," or even ask for, "a Rolls-Royce
spokesperson." IN FACT SEE ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT I PRESENTED THAT BOB DID
NOT CHOOSE TO ADDRESS:
----- Original Message -----
From: Grot
To: DavidIcke@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
; cia-drugs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Monday, July 19, 2004 7:55 PM
Subject: Re: [cia-drugs] Pentagon wall laughably flimsy 911
I think you are placing too much reliance on one investigator, Bob.
(more)
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob
To: cia-drugs@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Monday, July 19, 2004 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: [cia-drugs] Pentagon wall laughably flimsy 911
Grot wrote:
Bob,
> >So you are saying that the building was strong, except at the infills
around the new windows.
>No, the construction is post-and-beam. There are strong posts but between
them only
flimsy material(bricks, facade stone, and windows)--the "building" was not
strong.
The original hole details match up with the photo and diagram I showed you
of
what was behind the windows and facade stone. A couple of pieces of steel
remain
in the hole.
This agrees with my understanding -- concrete floors on pillars with
non-su****ting wall and window. The post-crash pre-collapse photos together
establish that no Boeing could have crashed there.
No evidence can be more final on this point than that presented here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/1
>> ..what about the floor of the second level
> Read witness accounts on desmoulins' site at links I gave, you will
find one account of the floor up there cracking and being displaced
vertically along an expansion joint. It fell down later.
Saw it.
>> -- given the low hanging engines
> Again, look through desmoulin's site and you will see two engine
compressor parts, a compressor wheel and a ring with holes in it.
One engine is as good as two. Then the witness accounts fill in for
you, it was an American Airlines Boeing 757 with Rolls Royce
turbofan engines.
These parts have not been matched with the 757 Rolls Royce engines.
They are also ****table. And they were photographed at least three days
after
the crash. If they went to the trouble of planting the piece of Boeing
skin on the lawn, as has been proven, then they might get a piece of
757 engine to further fool people -- except a connection with this piece
and the 757 has not yet been made -- this is where Sarah Roberts
foundered.
You say that one engine is as good as two -- but there are no
photos of this engine? It has been removed by the time the
photo of the hole in the C-ring is photographed -- again three
days later. Why was it removed? Why was only one engine
ever re****ted? And why did this solitary engine happen to
break out of a wall along with fuselage parts? All this adds
up to a single engine plane, engine in fuselage -- the famous
"small plane" of Eastman, Dewdney, Longspaugh.
..........
>>And why should the building collapse after the fires in that part of the
wedge are out --
>>and came down over ****tions where the plane did not hit, given the 55
degree angle hit
>>at the entry point?
> Having ruled out whatzits/missile/fighter by listening to witnesses who
saw
the Boeing 757 pass within feet of them, at VDOT traffic center, Sheraton
Hotel,
and apartment on Courthouse Road next to Columbia Pike, then find engine
and other parts in photos.
But Desmoulin has not solved the problem of most witnesses seeing the
plane
come in over points that put it at the wrong angle and, as those
concluding
small plane aver, not on a course that would have hit the first street
light. Desmoulin tries to reconcile witnesses who saw aircraft pass over
a
line of buildings to the north of Columbia Pike with other people who
heard
the jet go over their cars either on the Pike or south of it. Now
Desmoulins, to do this, has to call Sgt. Lagasse a liar and he has to
have
his Boeing do a ****mmy zig zag that no one re****ted, that would require
banking that no one re****ted, that could not be done under 10 feet off the
ground. And, as has been pointed out, Desmoulins, to make his story
work,
has his Boeing making a 25 degree turn from the first lamp post to the
crash
hole.
I guess I had better supply a URL on that, hadn't I?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/4
Far from being ruled out, the fighter and missile are permanently
established by the facts. I've got a URL for this one too:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/3
> We can wonder if there were script-fulfilment
demolitions at the crash site but we do not find evidence of such like
at OKCbomb Murrah, police radio transcripts from OKC and witness
accounts of mercury fulminate cannisters with military olive drab
containers carried out of the building and photos showing damage
beyond undamaged area(proof cutter charges placed behind undamaged
area to cut posts and beams).
I still do not see how the building collapsed where and how it did after
the
crash, since the attacking plane did not go straight in.
>Don't bury us with this architecture and history trivia unless you are
going to do something with it.
> Looking at the trees, ignoring the forest? Killing the messenger,
ignoring
specifics, recycling the same old dead-end non sequitur diversions?
Sized me up pretty quick, huh?
> The wall was weak so a shaped charge or DU penetrator was not necessary,
only the mass
of fuel in the belly tank was needed to punch a hole.
Between the windows are the strong pillars. The nose of the attacking
plane
hit at the 14th pillar from the left in the wedge. The fuselage
containing
the engine had to have gone into the first floor, because that is the
floor
it came out of after passing through the building. But the fuselage of a
Boeing 757, with the lower engines, would have had to have hit the
second-floor cement slab flooring head on -- as the Purdue engineers
represent it doing in their model simulation (led by one of the ASCE
engineers). Thus fuselage parts would not have come out of the
end-of-the-trail hole, unless it was a smaller, shorter plane with engine
in
the fuselage to carry it along. And what about the hole on the second
floor? That was caused by the tail fin of this smaller jet hitting the
same
14th pillar, taking it out (as it was travelling faster than the bullet
of
a handgun) and with it all of the "flimsy" material above and below the
windows (thanks for verifying that for me). This works. The Boeing
doesn't. The Boeing 757's tail fin, if one had hit, would have reached
half
way up the fourth floor -- it would have taken out wall at the third
floor
level. It did not. The limestone is untouched on the third and fourth
floors at the 14th pillar, and the windows on either side are unbroken,
flimsy as they were. Look at this;
http://bedoper.com/eastman/no_engine_hit_between__16an.jpg
Jean-Pierre Desmoulins avoids addressing any of this. I would say that
the
'small-plane' explanation is the only one that fits the data.
> There are American Airlines Boeing 757 parts strewn around.
This is notoriously untrue. Only one piece with AA markings was seen or
photographed on the grass -- and it has been shown to have been planted
there -- it is a piece from the starboard side of an AA 757 that could
not
have gotten to the north lawn, through the compressing airplane, through
the
radiating-out explosion, and even against the wind. And what's more --
the
rivets which helped identify it as from the starboard side are perfect
holes
without tears in the aluminum -- not ripped out (as the rivet bond is much
stronger than the aluminum skin) -- and much of the debris that is seen,
e.g., strewn along the heli****t pad, is tiny pieces, or shards, like
confettii -- like the casing of a missile warhead blown to "smithereens"
as
often described.
> Many witnesses saw a Boeing 757. It was a Boeing 757,
But this is no sup****t for the official story -- because the witnesses
saw
the Boeing come over the Sharaton, "directly over the Naval Annex," and
over the gas station (remember Desmoulins and not the small-plane boys are
calling wintesses liars here William Lagasse says the Boeing passed by
him
so that he was on its starboard side, i.e., that it was slightly north of
him, so that he sould see the row of starboard-side windows as it passed
--
making it impossible for that plane to have been the plane that knocked
down
the first pole which was southeast of Lagasse -- this is very strong
evidence in sup****t, not of the official story, but of the two-plane
thesis -- the attacking jet that few people saw and the Boeing.
And Desmoulin's does not even mention the woman who saw two planes
approach
and one "veer awa" at the last moment.
> whether guided by hijackers or computer, whether augmented by
script-fulfilment demolitions on site or not.
Yes, the Boeing may have had passengers and pilot or not -- but the point
is
that it did not crash at the Pentagon -- it merely flew ahead into the
morning sun, hidden by the flash and smoke, to land at the air****t whose
runway commences less than one mile from the the point of the crash.
So, "messenger," consider yourself "shot." I'm sticking with the
small-plane explanation.
And as for Desmoulin's, let me just add -- my guy can take your guy any
day
of the week. In fact he already has. Take a look:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/228
Also discrediting Desmoulins's attempt to buck the evidence are these:
http://www.911-strike.com/pentagon-all.htm
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/Eastman/m18h05.html
http://www.globalfreepress.com/ewing2001/911/1.shtml
http://www.bedoper.com/eastman
http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/june2004/063004showofforce.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/3
"Grot"
It's interesting that militant pro-Israelists feel a need not only to
exercise absolute control over the big media, and over the mainstream
political system on the left, right and middle, but also over the farthest
reaches of the dissenting and conspiracy research communities on the
Internet. No outpost of political inquiry and opinion, no matter how
remote
on the periphery, can be allowed to survive unmolested and uncontrolled by
these zealots. Does it come as any surprise that Christian
fundamentalists,
who display every sign of being psychologically susceptible to
totalitarian
cult thinking, and who rejoice over the prospect of the extermination of
everyone who doesn't submit to their views, are the ready and willing
tools
of such a program? -- Sean McBride
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/3
====================================================
This is not to say that I am a big fan of Dick Eastman. I know him and
have
little respect for him as a person -- I only say that the photos taken by
witnesses and the accounts of witnesses which Eastman merely brings to our
attention -- allow of no other explanation but that the Boeing flew over
the
cra****ng attacker. They are the genuine sufficient proof of what happened.
"Grot"
|
