- Ardeshir Mehta and Peter Wakefield Sault have been discussing
the Pentagon witness testimony and the damage path left by the killer jet.
Craig Ranke is another investigator who has interviewed new witnesses
years after I drew my conclusions and they have corroborated the account
of of Lagasse that agrees with the statement of witness Steve Riskus and
several others. Ardeshir and Peter are old friends. Ranke did his work
without any contact with me -- and reached the same conclusion with a
different set of witnesses, witnesses that were unknown to me.
- Here is a refresher on some of what has been known and
reported by honest investigators since 2002.
- Isn't all scientific replication, blind replication where
someone else performs the same operations to ascertain whether the same
result can be obtained.
- Would one deny historical knowledge which is all witness
- I examined the statements of all of the people who claim
to be witnesses of the Pentagon crash. Enough unrelated people -- although
some were suspiciously related as people working for USAToday and Jews
(Lincoln Leibner the man who "saw the Boeing crash", who first
told Rumsfeld it was a Boeing crash, who alone was allowed to enter and
bring out (selected) surivivors to the rescuers who themselves were not
allowed to proceed into the building, who hid his face from photographers
and would not give his name when asked for it -- who jus happened to park
far from the entrance for someone who showed up at the Pentagon at an unassigned
time to see if he "could help out" and Joel Sucherman who just
happens to be at the Pentagon with the top down on his convertible and
whose story is a bundle of contradiction. (see item two below):
- My conclusion that the Boeing flew over the Pentagon
more from the west as the killer jet (or missile) came from the southwest
is the explanation that best reconciles the witness accounts and the physical
evidence. To many witnesses saw the jetliner come from over the Hotel,
"directly over" Naval Annex and North of the gas station, or
fly straight in to ingore. Yet the line from the southwest most lamppost
that was knocked down to the impact point at column 14 -- the only place
with a hole big enough to accomodate the width of a large plane (although
photos show damage elsewhere on the wall indicating entry by a second object
(air-to-ground missile) too far south to have been caused even by the tip
of the starboard wing of a 757. I have thus presented the data-derived,
data-controlled, explanation that reconciles the facts with the witness
accounts -- unlike the no-plane-hit-the-WTC disinfo-dialectics cover-up
team who fly in the face of 47 video recordings, of witness accounts of
targeted people who were inside the building, of 14 firemen who colleagues
were killed, who deny the importance of airplane shaped holes with the
beams around the edge of the holes pushed in by the plane, by the absense
of even one video what shows the south side of the South Tower exploding
without first a plane hitting (when all of New York and across the Hudson
had been photographing WTC complex that had sustained an airplane hit fifiteen
minutes before -- so that there would be no way for a "no-plane-at-the-WTC
black op to control for all of the cameras that would or could be aimed
at the giant skyline dominating skyscraper at that moment, which reasonalby
would be a great many.
- I have vanquished the no-planers again and again. I
have presented the Pentagon evidence -- since March 2002 -- that is conclusive
evidence of the false-flag attack -- yet Lawson and Galan -- instead of
promoting the findings of Barbara Honegger, Carol Valenine and myself -
no one will ever accuse you fellows on my side of being followers -- you
guys have continued -- against my repeated counsel -- to give Fetzer and
Reynolds and the others (all with histories of deception and deliberate
evasion of the obvious unambiguous fact). You men have been perfect dupes
-- or else perfect straight men accomplices. Lawson has spent all of
that time attempting to refute the errors of the no-planers (which means
"perpetrators of the COINTELPRO lie that no planes hit the twin towers
at the WTC" who defend their transparently spurious claim with flagrant
insincerity and utterly false and one-sided "open-mindedness"
-- Fetzer treats all theories as equally good and offered not methodological
criteria for discrimination among theories -- acting more like the moderator
of a meeting of Alcoholics Annonymous than a man who understands that
science advances by refutation and the survival of the provisionally fittest
theory) -- anyway you have rejected my efforts and the efforts of Dewdney
and have focused all your efforts on these counter-intelligence disinformationists
who use the old Marxist dialectic tactic of attempting to split their
opposition by creating false-issues for them to argue over. The no-Boeing
hit the Pentagon evidence is conclusive and should have won the day and
brought down the conspiracy 111 months ago -- yet webfairy (who first
argued a UFO hit the North Tower, then that all of the planes were holograms,
then, after meeting with Holmgren who is affiliated with arch-Zionist and
Israel-involvement denier Jared Israel and whose band requires Jewsih patronage
in Austrailia -- Sean McBride has suggested that Holmgren is captive to
Murdoch interests) -- anyway it was clear that Gerard Holmgren was totally
disingenuous in his arguing for no-planes at the WTC -- As I was saying,
the circle of Pentagon investigators that were playing straight had the
evidence to disprove the no-planers -- to of us defected to the other
side (Holmgren and Killtown -- both of whom were once very helpful and
very close allies in seeking the truth about the Pentagon) -- yet as
always the old communist tactic of dialectic -- provoke an argument to
muddy the waters and make the truth appear an organized circus of "crazy
theories" as the real investigators who have done their job are nibbled
to death by minnows and disgraced by charlatons and good men with weak
minds are led to listen to the heckling of the tomato thrower rather than
the man who has brought them the truth.
- I have never asked to lead the 9-11 truth movement, as
others have named it -- yet I have long wondered why scientific and moral
virtue never get their due, while the disruptive tricks of the enemy always
find their mark -- in elections, in politics, in education and in uncovering
conspiracies. My guess is that you were impressed by the organization
and the major media. When unrespected charlaton Fetzer hoodwinked respected
and apolitical physicist Dr. Steven Jones to found Scholars for 9-11 Truth
and then, after the organization grew large and we all had hope for it
-- bumped Jones out of the organization and took it under his exclusive
and wholly unaccountable control (unless he is accountable to some secret
(Israeli?) agency) -- so that he now has the cache of "spokesman
for scholars" -- and also the fact that he has a ready in to speak
his phony 9-11 evidence (always omitting the conclusive lines of evidence!!!)
when his special status as 9-11 agent playhing role of irrational clueless
baffoon -- gets the interviews before the National Press Club and on Fox
News etc. etc. etc.
- How many times have I told you that? How many times
to you ignore me -- and continue to devote hour after hour day after day
arguing about whether planes hit the WTC -- when EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY
KNOWS THAT PLANES DID HIT.
- Don't deny that you have been told all this by me at
least a dozen times before.
- Follow virtue and leave folly alone. Support those who
have the truth -- don't drown out the man with the truth with your loud
arguing -- your endless expenditure of time and effort and words words
words arguing with the man who is only in the room to throw tomatoes,
hurl irrational insults and intentionally absurd and mocking counter-claims.
- And remember too that I have warned you many times these
letters Cc'd to a group of us and at the same time to a team of no-planers
are a deliberate trap to tie you all up. You write because there are people
you respect as an audience -- even though you should realize (and observe)
that the conversation is dominated by the agenda of argument fo the no-planers
and all of the real investigators who have the truth waste their time discussing
no-planes-hit-the-WTC. Remember how I pointed out that no-planer Morgan
Reynold's comes from the Carl Rove and Ted Olsen white house -- that he
was picked because he knew me when we were both at Texas A & M (he
factualy and me in the doctoral program in economics) -- and that no-planes-hit-the-WTC
is clearly -- for several reasons -- designed to neutralize the no-Boeing
at the Pentagon (especaily important to Ted Olsen who lied about speaking
to his wife in alledging two calls from her from Flight 77) etc.
- Yes, you are on my side. Yes, you know the facts. Yes,
you are my friends and fellow fighters. And yes, you never learn.
- Of course I can same the same about the Kleptastrophe
-- everyone prefers Ron Paul or Jesse Ventura as the man with the answers.
- I open my mailbox this week and no one letter from anybody
about 9-11 or about the economy -- just this Cc letter of your continuing
debate with no-planers. Just the continuing flow of doom prophecies --
with no one with a gasp of the dynamic of the problem and no appreciation
for the solution which I have again and a gain layed out.
- Yet you are doubtless offended because I am not backing
you up in your latest plunge against the Fetzer-Reynolds-Rove-Olsen psy-op
- I forgive you.
- Dick Eastman
- Yakima, Washington
- Two items follow:
- (1) Scholarship of Fetzer by Rolf Lindgren
- (2) Eastman looks at Joel Sucherman
- Scholarship Failures of Dr. James Fetzer
- Fetzer is a 9/11 Activist, not a 9/11 Scholar or Expert
- by Rolf Lindgren
- Dr. Fetzer is a good friend of mine, but I am very disappointed
with the quality of his scholarship.
- There are six areas of scholarship which Dr. Fetzer needs
to shore up to become a credible leader in the 9/11 Truth Movement and
a true 9/11 Expert. This analysis is based on one thousand conversations
and one hundred personal meetings with Dr. Fetzer in the past two years.
- 1) Dr. Fetzer has not read and/or is unfamiliar with
the material in five fundamental books about 9/11. These books are:
- a) The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson
- b) The 9/11 Commission Report
- c) The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions
by Dr. David Ray Griffin
- d) Debunking 9/11 Myths by Popular Mechanics
- e) Debunking 9/11 Debunking by Dr. David Ray Griffin
- Dr. Fetzer needs to read these books and digest the material
to become a true expert on 9/11. To be an expert on any subject, you need
to be familiar with both sides of the story, and possess a broad knowledge
of all the evidence.
- 2) Dr. Fetzer had not read and/or shows no evidence that
he had read any of the 47 articles published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
- To be a real 9/11 scholar, you need to keep up on the
latest research. You also need to publish peer-reviewed papers.
- Journal of 9/11 Studies
- 3) Dr. Fetzer has not studied the NIST or FEMA reports
on the collapse of the WTC, nor the critiques of these reports by Jim Hoffman,
Dr. Stephen Jones, Gordon Ross, Richard Gage, and Kevin Ryan.
- 4) Dr. Fetzer has put in little time studying the debunking
arguments against the 9/11 Truth Movement. The best place to study these
arguments is at the JREF conspiracy theories forum.
- 5) Dr. Fetzer seems to accept virtually every conspiracy
theory uncritically. When it appears that you believe every conspiracy
theory, you lose your ability to persuade.
- 6) Since Dr. Fetzer has a PhD in the History and Philosophy
of Science, that should assist him in his study of 9/11. However, Dr.
Fetzer appears to have never read and/or is unfamiliar with the writings
of Galileo Galilei and his times. Galileo is considered the Father of
the Scientific Revolution and inventor of the Scientific Method. The birth
of science has striking parallels to today regarding 9/11, as they impact
science, philosophy, politics, and religion.
- Ironically, one such relevant book from Galileo's time
is called 'A Defense of Galileo' by the Italian Philosopher Thomas Campanella,
published in 1622. Campanella wrote this book while sitting in prison
for "heresy". This book explains the qualifications for a good
scholar who wants to investigate whether the earth moves.
- A Defense of Galileo the Mathematician from Florence
- by Thomas Campanella
- Dr. Fetzer has the academic credentials, organizing ability,
and intelligence to be a true 9/11 Scholar and 9/11 Expert. But until
he puts in the study time, he will be nothing more than a 9/11 Activist.
- Rolf Lindgren
- Barrett Campaign Adviser
- PS - I apologize for the harshness of this short essay.
However, it is critical that leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement be held
to higher standards. Without excellent in 9/11 Truth leadership, the Bush
Administration may escape justice.
- (2) Joel Sucherman's witness story actually confirms
Boeing flyover and his own dishonesty
- Evidence 1.A "Sucherman cross ahead of him while
northbound on Route 27 but the jet or missile that hit the wall crossed
- Joel Sucherman locates himself on Washington Blvd. 100
yds from the Pentagon headed north. He sees the American Airlines jetliner
- cross Washington Blvd. (flying west to east) 50 to 75
feet in front of him. But the lamppost on Washington Blvd. that hit the
taxi stood 322 yds southwest the crash on Washington Blvd -- behind Sucherman.
If the killer object knocked down the lamppost and hit the Pentagon at
a 50 to 55 -degree angle as the engineers insist
- -- then the jetliner Sucherman saw pass in front of him
could not have been the plane.
- The jetliner that witnesses saw came directly over the
Naval Annex and pass north of the Citgo gas station just before crossing
Washington Blvd proceeded straight on to the Pentagon. But a course directly
to the crash point from north of the gas station crosses Washington Blvd.
(route 27) too far north for that plane to have hit the lamppost on the
southwest corner of the Washington Blvd. stone bridge at the center of
the cloverleaf interchange.
- Witness Joel Sucherman confirms this fact when he says
- 100 yards from the crash location and that the plane
crossed Washington Blvd. in front of his northbound car a mere 50 to 75
yards from his windshield. Thus the plane passed north of his northbound
car. But the first lamppost that was downed stood on Washington Blvd.
on the other side of the highway 322 yards away from the crash -- Sucherman
had already passed it in the slow commuter traffic, it was well south of
him, that is behind him, when he saw through his windshield the plane cross
his path ahead of him. The the same plane could not have crossed Washington
Blvd both behind and 50 yards in front of Sucherman. Sucherman had his
back to the real killer plane (or missile) as it knocked down the
- Concept diagram: Joel Sucherman -- to the extent that
his account is accurate -- proves that the jetliner he saw cross Washington
Blvd 50 to 75 feet ahead of him when he was 100 feet from the crash point,
could not have been the plane that knocked down the pole on Washington
Blvd that was already well behind him and over 300 yards from the crash.
- Distance of Sucherman from crash: 100 yards
- Distance of Sucherman from the airliner than crossed
Wash Blvd in front of (north of) his northbound car: 50 to 75 yards
- Distance of the lamppost southwest from the impact point
on same highway (from pillar #14): 322 yds.
- Distance Sucherman in the northbound lane would have
been from the crash if he was even with the lamppost 306 yds.
- "USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all:
an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision
as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large
plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield.
Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down
or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west
wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. 'My first thought was he's not going
to make it across the river to [Reagan] National Airport. But whoever was
flying the plane made no attempt to change direction,' Sucherman said.
'It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle-almost
like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead
- - "Journalist Witnesses Pentagon Crash." eWeek.com,
13 Sep 2001
- What does it mean for the plane to have passed 50 to
75 feet ahead of Sucherman's car and that the crash occured 100 yards
away from Sucherman? And what does it mean that Sucherman saw the plane
cross in front of him from left to right? It can mean only one thing --
that Sucherman was headed north, that he had already passed the famous
lamppost on the overpass at the heart of the cloverleaf (that pole is
over 300 yards southeast of the where the killer jet crashed -- the pole
on Wash. Blvd. that was knocked down by the killer jet and hit the southbound
taxi) and yet, having past this pole, Sucherman saw the jetliner cross
in front of him (as his car faced north) going from left (west) to right
- This means that the plane that Sucherman saw could not
have been the plane that downed the pole that Sucherman had left behind
- The plane Sucherman saw was the jetliner that come over
the Naval Annex and flew from west to east north of the gas station and
well north of that pole. Sucherman may have made an honest mistake when
he interpreted the jetliner he saw as making the explosion that was caused
by the plane that knocked down that pole and passed behind Sucherman's
car and into the wall 100 yards from Sucherman.
- Sucherman -- an "unfriendly witness" -- backs
up the already well-established conclusion that the jetliner was not the
plane that hit the pole and that crashed into the west wall at a 50-degree
angle coming from the southwest.
- Some of these photos have a Boeing drawn in on the path
taken by the killer object that passed behind Sucherman's car. Remember,
the plane that Sucherman saw came from north of the gas station and therefore
had to cross Washington Blvd. further north than where the lamppost was
struck. In the photo taken from the gas station you can see the stone
bridge where the lamppost stood on the southwest corner (right side).
You can also see that if the Boeing flew to the Pentagon crash point passing
north of the gas station (left in the east-facing picture) that it would
have to have crossed Washington Blvd. north of Sucherman who had already
passed the lamppost on his left as he headed north.
- From: email@example.com
- To: Ardeshir Mehta ; Craig R
- Cc: 9-11-NeXuS@yahoogroups.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Anthony
Lawson ; Adam Syed ; Chris Gruener ; Edward Rynerson ; Dick Eastman ; galen
- Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 3:53 AM
- Subject: Re: Discussion from March regarding Pentagon
- Hi Ardeshir
- What dictionary are you using? According to
- noun, plural -ries.
- 1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles
of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
- 2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural,
in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting
matters of actual fact.
- 3.Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the
like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
- 4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its
principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
- 5.a particular conception or view of something to be
done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
- 6.contemplation or speculation.
- 7.guess or conjecture.
- 1590?1600; < LL the?ria < Gk the?ría a viewing,
contemplating, equiv. to the?r(eîn) to view + -ia -y 3
- 1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts
to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more
or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts
or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put
forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves
as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea
is only a hypothesis.
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Ardeshir Mehta [mailto:email@example.com]
- Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 06:44 PM
- To: 'Craig R'
- Cc: 9-11-NeXuS@yahoogroups.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, 'Anthony
Lawson', 'Adam Syed',
- 'Chris Gruener', 'Edward Rynerson', 'Dick Eastman', 'galen'
- Subject: Re: Discussion from March regarding Pentagon
- Hi all,
- My two cents: I would discount ANY "eyewitness testimony"
as being worthless in itself (that is, without corroborating PHYSICAL evidence).
Eyewitness testimony has been debunked a HUGE number of times, for example
- and notably - with respect to "The Holocaust(TM)". The only
evidence I would put any store in is actual PHYSICAL evidence. That is
the ONLY kind which is genuinely verifiable. When it comes to eyewitnesses,
it is clearly impossible to verify the validity of eyewitness evidence
from the original source of the evidence, namely the eyewitness. So eyewitness
accounts, even first-hand eyewitness accounts, if uncorroborated by physical
evidence, can hardly be considered verifiable evidence.
- Now speaking for myself, I have yet to see ANY physical
(i.e., genuinely verifiable) evidence FOR either the cruise missile theory
or the planted explosives theory. I don't see such evidence: neither at
Peter's web site nor at Craig's (i.e., CIT's). Indeed, these two "theories"
can at best be called "speculations": they are not really theories.
- This is not to say that either of the speculations is
necessarily false - for instance, just because nobody saw anything remotely
resembling a missile doesn't mean that there wasn't one - but that is hardly
the same as saying that the speculation in question MUST be true. Personally,
I would not be surprised to learn, if further physical evidence were to
be uncovered, that one of them is indeed true. But the present absence
of physical evidence FOR either of the two speculations certainly constitutes
more-than-reasonable doubt about both of them.
- Ardeshir Mehta
- Ottawa, Canada.
- On 29-May-09, at 10:09 AM, Craig R wrote:
- The fact is that we canvassed the neighborhoods on foot
and found previously unknown witnesses who saw this same plane in the same
area (and others) who are NOT employed by the govt nor have they ever been
talked to by the media. But do you really think that all employees of the
govt in the area who saw the plane (including maintenance workers, groundskeepers
at the country club and a gas station attendant at the citgo) are ALL in
on the plot even if they prove the official story false???
- Are you really suggesting that all the people we found
in the neighborhoods are govt plants? Are you really that willing to completely
ignore an entire catagory of true independent verifiable evidence simply
because it contradicts your theory?
- If so why did you tell me in March that you would view
the evidence and get back to me on that and why did you fail to do so?