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 circumstantial 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]
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
|
