3 Items -- including my letter to readers regarding the cover-up artists,
and why the real 9-11 investigators have failed despite solving the crime
> Vince Sauve posts:
>
> I would like to know what HARD evidence there is for a missile?
The tiny shards, not of a plane crash which would yield debris of all
sizes,
but of the casing of a missile blown to smithereens.
The video camera recording of the actual smoke trail of the missile.
The military witness in the Pentagon who heard the characteristic sound of
a
missile.
The large white-hot (or flash explosion) is seen in the video as occuring
in
front of the wall -- not an explosion of a plane inside the building --
the
explosion goes straight up in the air, not out from the hole --
> The hole is way too big for a missile.
The hole was made a missile hitting on the first floor, followed within a
second by the fuselage of the jet fighter that fired the missile -- which
brought down a length of about 70 feet of the outer wall of the first
floor -- but left walls inside the building (and perpendicular to the
outer wall) still standing right behind the hole. The hole on the second
floor is very small, and it was made by the tail fin of the jet fighter
hitting column 14 between two windows, so that the hole on the second
floor
is only the width of the two windows -- as the Priest remarked, the fire
seemed to be coming from just two windows on the sedcond floor.
Remember, Mr. Disinfo, you are trying to discredit the "small-plane"
finding -- which is the conclusion from evidence that a jet fighter fired
a
missile into the wall ahead of its own cra****ng, while the Beoing 757
overflew the crash in progress, disappearing in the missile warhead flash
and the smoke and flame that followed, to land at Reagan National only one
mile beyond. SO NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT THE HOLE SEEN WAS MADE JUST BY A
MISSILE!!! Either you are incompetent to argue because you didn't even
know
the elements of the case you are attacking, or you are disingenously
putting
out what you know is a misrepresentation of the "small-plane" position.
>The squiggly white va**** seen in the first
> Pentagon security camera frame is too wavy to
> be from a missile.
I justapose two pictures of F-16's firing air-to-ground
missiles -- and in each the smoke trail has exactly
the same pro****tion of convex billow and texture etc.
Now either you saw my evidence page with the evidence
photo of the missile trail and these other missile trail
photos or you did not. Either way, you disqualify yourself
as worthy of an audience on this issue.
> I've
> seen missiles in flight before and I have never seen such a wavy (up and
> down, up and down) va**** before.
Va**** trails always have local irregularities, they are never
straight-line
regular affairs like toothpaste from the tube. The photos bely your
re****ted
experience.
> To me that white va**** is definitely
> not evidence of a missile.
I notice you do not attempt to explain the presence of the wavy white
something behind and below the tail fin, that trails behind the attacking
plane in the first picture, and is shown as disappating and being pulled
into the updraft of the explosion in the subsequent pictures in the
sequewnce.
Your certainty, based on so frivolous an objection, to something proven by
the evidence in three seperate lines of photographic evidence totally
discredits you.
> Also why bother with a missile attack when
> flight 77 will do?
There were definite targets which under Rumsfeld were moved into the
refurbished wedge that was hit -- and they had to be sure to be taken
out.
Cra****ng the Boeing would not have been precise enough. ANd besides that
Rumsfeld himself was in the building -- the planners had to provide
precision that cra****ng the airliner would not provide. Remember, the
Boeing could not have made a surgical hit of offices on the first floor,
it
would have had to have gone down through four heavy concrete floors plus
the roof with all kinds of chances for the destructive energy to have been
diverted away from the intended target -- they needed the F-16 for the
surgical missile and crashbombing attack.
> As I said before the hole is big enough for all of
> the most massive parts of the 757 to crash through.
As I have been showing for two years, the killer jet hit at pillar #14
(the
ASCE engineers concluded this about where the nose hit) -- but if the nose
of the Boeing had hit at pillar #14, then the starboard engine would have
had to have penetrated between pillars 16 and 18 -- but interior walls
still standing establish that no engine went through there.
Only one engine was recovered and only one engine punched an exit hole --
andthat exit hole (in C-ring) was in line with the downed lampposts and
the
entry hole -- indicating that the engine was in the fuselage of the killer
jet -- thus a military fighter, not an engine-under-the-wing jetliner.
(Besides, the Boeing is so tall that the tail fin of a Boeing would have
had
to have hit at the third floor level, which, in fact was not scratched --
the limestone untouched, the windows unbroken!
This is so obvious -- there should be no argument -- except for the
techniques of the psy-opers serving the cover-up.
> The limestone showed
> fractures on the pre collapse walls where the wing tips didn't have
> enough mass to brake through.
As I said, there was no damage on the third floor, where the tail fin of a
Boeing 757 would have had to have hit.
> The only exception was the vertical tail
> wing, but this could be because the tail wing moved down (not
> necessarily under the influence of gravity) while the plane was being
> crushed.
It moved down??? Into the compacting compressing fuselage? The tail is
brittle -- one month later a plane went down in Queens because the tail
fin
broke off! The tail fin hitting at a speed greater than that of a bullet
would have taken out the pillar -- as the tail fin of the killer jet
actually did on the second floor.
> Some say but the windows weren't broken above the impact. But
> this doesn't surprise me since I have seen poly carbonate glazing
> withstand rifle bullets.
The limestone sheathing of column #14 woujld have been pushed through,
taking the windows (broken or unbroken) with it-- as happened when the
killer jet's tail fin hit column #14 on the second floor.
So much for Rick Suave.
Rick, And Bill Callison (who works with Kyle Hence, cover-up partner of
John
Judge) are clearly posting against their own better knowledge -- they are
arguing as crooked lawyers do who know their client is guilty, but only
the
prosecutor and a few others well-conversant with the facts can see what
they
are up to.
ATTENTION:
LOOK AT MY EVIDENCE AT THESE SITES, BECAUSE IT IS ALL COMING DOWN ON
WEDNESDAY --
Here is the critical information needed to derive an informed
opinion of what really happened oat the Pentagon, 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
>> Bill Callison posted:
>>
>> Perhaps Dick Eastman and Mark Rabinowitz each have a hand on the
> elephant of what hit the Pentagon, where, and why. Eastman cites
> considerable evidence of a missile. Others cite
>> considerable evidence of the airliner.
Half right. There is nothing indicating an airliner hit -- we have proven
planted Boeing skin on the lawn, no evidence in any of the wreckage photos
taken by FEMA, or removed to the parking lot, or carted away by the
"clean-up" cor****ation (same firm that cleaned up in Oaklahoma after the
frame-up bombing there.)
> It appears that the military
> authorities went to considerable lengths, as civilian authorities did
> in New York, to hide and destroy evidence during the clean-up, making
> our quest for the truth more difficult and more fractious.
Yes, so why do you talk about considerable evidence of a Boeing????
>> Perhaps both the airliner AND a supplemental missile hit the
> Pentagon.
You ignore every point of my evidence -- you are obviously attempting to
undermine the truth by plantingone spurious theory after another to drown
out the voice of the truth with one evidence-inconsistent fantasy scenario
after another -- so that the truth is rejected as just one viewpoint
among
many competing theories etc.
And you are right -- people are stupid and asleep enough to be lead from
the facts, from the done-deal solution to the crime.
That is why I am taking all my evidence down -- I am not going to let
you
crowd out the smart people by filling their scientific with the
severe-profound retarded and jar-cap-spinning autistics.
I piped and you didn't dance.
So hum your own dance tune. I'm done.
>> At first glance this seems redundant on the planners' part, but not
> necessarily. Put yourself in their shoes. For one thing, in addition
> to the general objectives of the plot, Eastman reminds us that they had
> specific targets in the Pentagon as well: the ONI, which had the
> potential to unravel their plot if they survived, and those assigned to
> investigating Defense Dept. contracts. With everything at stake, would
> they depend on an airliner flown by a fanatic hijacker, or even one
> under electronic control, to strike the Pentagon exactly so as to take
> out their targets and minimize the damage to other personnel and
>> facilities?
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.
|
