- This is part three of my reply to Don Fredrick. The first
part was about evidence and witness testimony establishing that the jetliner
that flew towards eastward the Pentagon was not the killer object that
came more from the southwest. The second part establishes that the governments
own evidence in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the five pictures from
the Pentagon's own security camera, establishes without question that the
killer object was less than half the length of a Boeing 757 and that it
left behind it a smoke trail exactly like that of an air-to-ground missile.
-
- Now we examine the many photos of the imprint left by
the killer object (and the additional missile) BEFORE the wall was brought
down by demolition at 10:15 a.m. to destroy that evidence. We also discuss
who a firetruck was assigned to spread a curtain of water across the damaged
wall to prevent people from photographing the damage and that the truck
was withdrawn within the same minute that the wall was collapsed.
-
- Again, this is information that an army of phony 9-11
investigators talking about ray guns in space and "no planes hitting
the WTC" have been keeping the public from learning about.
-
- If you haven't talked to me or Barbara Honegger or Carol
Valentine or Dr. A.K. Dewdney about the Pentagon evidence -- then believe
me, you have been kept in the dark for over severn years just like the
rest of the country.
-
- Read on.
-
-
- From: Don Fredrick
- To: Dick Eastman
- Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 3:05 PM
- Subject: Re: Dick Eastman to Don Fredrick Re: Highest
treason.
-
- I have tried to keep an open mind on this subject, and
have read quite a few things sent to me by 9/11 skeptics. I do not underestimate
the depths of evil or abuse to which a government - any government,
Republican or Democrat - will go. I imagine that pretty much anything is
possible. (I am skeptical, however, when they tell me they "see
something" in a blurry Pentagon photograph that, to me, simply
looks like a blurry photograph.
-
-
- Here is yet more of the body of photo evidence which
you have characterized as "a blurry Pentagon picture"
-
-
- Yet More 9-11 Pentagon Photo Evidence
-
- No one can get the full significance of these photos unless
they are seen together.
-
- -- Dick Eastman
-
- The damage imprint on the west wall
-
- I have collected sufficient conclusive evidence to convict
the White House and Pentagon staffs for treason and the secret
services of other nations for hostile acts. Here is some of it.
-
- First we'll look the damage caused by the small-jet
or missile that hit at column 14. Then we will check out the hole on the
second floor further south which is consistent with penetration by an air-to-ground
missile and which cannot be explained by the plane given the distant hole
at column 14 where the nose of the attacking plane is said to have hit
the wall.
-
- Finally there are several pictures showing that
the fire trucks for no apparent reason pointlessly created
a continuous curtain of fire hose spray that covered the damage imprint
so it could not be photographed from Washington Blvd. This misty
barrier to vision was maintained for several long minutes and
obviously was not being directed at any fire. And to top it off, this truck
and curtain of water were only withdrawn when everyone was ordered to clear
the area in front of the Pentagon because another plane was on its way
(stop and think about the irrationality of that command) and that in the
same minute -- at 10:15 a.m. that the fire truck pulled away and the curtain
of water was gone the building suddenly and unexpectedlyh collapsed destroying
the evidence imprint forever. Clearly someone did not want this wall imprint
examined too closely. Clearly the fire truck and the crew were acting as
cover-up agents and clearly they were withdrawn on an outrageously implausible
pretext so that demolition could bring down the wall obliterating the imprint.
Nevertheless -- photos were taken showing the imprint and here they are.
-
- Again I remind you that I spend over sixy years attempting
to get this to peoples attention -- sending out these pictures daily --
only to be rejected and ridiculed by Mike Ruppert, Carol Brouillet, John
Judge, Nico Haupt, Rosalee Webfairy Grable, Jared Israel, Alex Jones, and
a hundred others on yahoogroups, and Usenet newsgroups. Today Jim Fetzer
or Morgan Reynolds never mentions this information when their are given
easy access to Fox News and the National Press Club etc.
-
- In the end only a handful have been true to the
truth -- Peter Wakefield Sault, Barbara Honegger, Carol Valentine,
-
- From: Dick Eastman
- To: A. K. Dewdney
- Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 9:57 AM
- Subject: The damage "imprint" does not allow
that the killer jet had a starboard wing engine
-
- The width of a Boeing 757 is such that if the nose hit
at what the investigating engineers identify as pillar #14, then the starboard
engine would have had to have hit at pillar #16. Very clear pictures affording
an unobstructed view of the damage at pillar 14 and to the right exist
and are presented below. Pillar #16 seems to have been partially blasted
away, but it is still standing. It was not hit by a 757 starboard wing
engine.
-
- Wrong imprint.
-
- The damage "imprint" initially sustained by
the Pentagon on 9/11/01 does not allow that the killer jet had a starboard
wing engine, does not allow that it had a vertical stabilizer reaching
above the fourth floor. Furthermore it shows damage where there shouldn't
be any, damage that is consistent with high-explosive blasts near ground
level and penetration by bunker-buster missile warheads into the second
floor south of the crash vicinity. Simple inspection of this evidence below
will convince you yet again that the killer weaponry was not a Boeing 757
jetliner.
-
-
-
-
- One of the very first crash site photos taken
by witnesses.
-
-
- According to civil engineers who inspected the wreckage
two days later, the nose of the attacking plane hit at the location shown
below, a column between two windows, designated in the engineer's report
as column #14. This column marks the center of the crash imprint left by
the killer plane.
-
-
-
-
- If the fusleage and vertical stabilizer hit column #14,
then we must ask where is there any evidence of a starboard engine hitting
at columns #16 or #17? And why is there any damage at all on the second
floor between columns #18 and #20?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Here is a diagram prepared by the American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE) engineers who examined the structural condition
of the the pillars in the damaged section of the Pentagon three days after
the attack.
-
-
- The engineers recorded the different levels of damage
done to supporting pillars at the first-floor level of the crash region,
including the exterior pillars between windows, using this system of catagorization:
-
-
- Pink squares: In collapsed area. Presumed to have had
significant impairment (these are guesswork)
- Red squares: Missing, broken, disconnected, or otherwise
without remaining function
- Blue squares: Impacted with large deformation and significant
impairment of function
- Green squares: Heavy cracking and spalling with some
impairment of function
- Yellow squares: Cracking and spalling with no significant
impairment of function.
-
-
- (note: "Spalling" means chips have been knocked
off the pillar.)
-
-
-
-
-
- The question now arises: Had the killer jet been a Boeing
757 that nosed into pillar #14, as depicted in this diagram, at which location,
in terms of pillars, would the starboard engine have had to have hit the
building?
-
-
-
-
- Overlay of Boeing 757 on the American Society
of Civil Engineers Diagram by Jean-Pierre Desmoulins
-
-
- So let's test the Boeing thesis: Verify that no starboard
wing engine (i.e.,t he engine hanging from the wing to the right of the
seated pilot) penetrated anywhere on the first floor between columns 15
and 18.
-
-
-
-
- No sign of engine penetration from pillar #16 to pillar
#18. Pillar #15 is blasted away, especially near ground level -- yet had
the killer jet been a Boeing 757 with engines hanging lower than the fuselage,
the lowest part of pillar #14 would not have been touched by any part of
the Boeing. Clearly, by looks of it, the pillar has been blasted away,
not burned away.
-
- The damage is too extensive on the ground floor at column
14 below the two-window hole that was made above it. Also the damage
at column 16 on the first floor where the starboard (right-side) engine
is supposed to have hit (but clearly did not) is insufficient. There was
a large trailer parked at column 14 at the time of the attack. The trailor,
we may surmise, was blown to smithereens apparently by a bomb -- and may
account for much of that confettii debris on the heliport landing pad. Possibly
the bomb, was intended to enlarge the hole made by the small jet or
missile that actually did hit the wall. Barbara Honegger has already established
that bombs went off in the Pentagon before the alleged time of impact.
This trailer bomb would be just one more of those.
-
-
-
-
-
- While the perpendicular angle of approach in this diagram is
wrong for the killer jet, the diagram does show the size of a Boeing 757
with respect to the spacing of Pentagon columns and the windows between
them.
-
- ----
-
- From: michael
- Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009
- To: info@odeion.org
- Subject: Re: Pent. pic
-
- Good day! glad to hear you've seen this before, i've
only met a few who have.
-
- as to your questions:
-
- i have a great deal of experience and training in professional
photography and computer graphics, retouched or altered photos are easy
to spot in any higher grade graphics programs unless the photo scanned,
if not digital, is scanned at very low resolution.
-
- there were actually two explosions, one from some type
of small aircraft that hit the building and the other from a truck bomb:
you can see the back of the truck blown out with flames coming from it
in other photos of the scene near the chain link fence to the right.
-
- lastly, it's obvious no large passenger aircraft hit.
i was in the Air Force and was involved in crashed aircraft recovery, i
know how much is left after a crash and the size of the debris field, one
clean up was after an aircraft hit a hillside while doing close to mach
1, there was still considerable debris. no aircraft vaporizes entirely
on impact no matter the speed it was traveling and the pristine lawn speaks
for itself, not the mention the cable spools.
-
- thanks for the reply, have a great day.
-
- michael
-
-
-
-
- This picture shows column #14 location on the second
floor. There appears to be a vestage of the column still hanging there.
But the picture also shows, to the right, the other, unexplained, damage
on the second floor at pillar #s 17, 18 and 19 -- not explained at all
by the pillar #14 plane crash.
-
-
-
-
-
- Note above that the damage caused by a vertical stabilizer
does not reach above the second floor level. Yet a Boeing 757 tail fin
should reach up to the middle of the fourth floor level, had the killer
jet actually been a Boeing 757.
-
-
-
-
-
- The hole in he fence indicates a plane or missile travelling
very low. The damage to the second floor (between pillars 19 and 20 --
see diagram above) could not have been caused by what hit the fence. In
fact this hole in the window between columns 19 and 20 and the damage to
the facing to the left of it on the second floor cannot be explained by
the wing of the plane.
-
- Obviously the story of the banking plane was made up
on the spot and put out by planted disinformationist witnesses to explain
away the damage on the second floor so far south (to the right of) the
crash centered at pillar 14. The claims that the plane's port engine dragged
in the grass and that the plane pivoted on the dug-in wing, "cartwheeling
into the building," or that the plane "bounced," are contradicted
by pristine grass and by the fact that there is no damage where the engine
would have had to have hit at or above the ceiling of the first level (the
second-story floor) at column 16.
-
- Witnesses who say they saw an engine go by them -- may
have seen the killer jet (or missile) which would more or less approximate
the size of a Boeing engine.
-
- Thus we have no hole for the engine at column 16 and
a hole that can only be explained by yet another object (missile) between
columns 19 and 20 on the second floor.
-
-
-
-
-
- From: Sweet Sue
- Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009
- Subject: Re: If Ranke is right and no missile or small
jet hit the Pentagon west wall at a fifty-five degree angle -- then it
doesn't matter which side of the gas station big plane flew
-
- That photo shows a missle, not a big jumbo jet. I saw
RAW LIVE FEED THAT MORNING..... an interview with a woman who said "the
missle zoomed past her as she was walking and hit the pentagon." That
was before the news said it was a jet. I believe there was a jet flying
around the pentagon, but it was cover for the missle that hit and then
blamed on the jumbo jet. Remember also, "where" in the pentagon
that hit. It was where the investigators were working on that missing $2.7
trillion of missing pentagon money. Now all the evidence and many of those
investigators are dead and gone.
-
-
-
-
- And then there is the matter of the drawn curtain of
water and what happened the minute the curtain came down.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- One of the fire trucks positioned itself south of pillar
14 and proceeded to emit a spray of water towards the north covering with
spray the features of the crash. There is not apparant reason for this
action other than to conceal the damage from view. Within 20 minutes the
wall of the Pentagon collapses destroying the evidence described above
-- yet the part of the building that collapsed is to the right of where
the "airliner" supposedly entered the building at a fifty degree
angle headed northeast. The fire had been put out by this time. The collapse
and the spraying of water by the fire truck to cover the damage appear
to be instances of the concealment and destruction of evidence respectively.
-
-
-
-
- Coverup actions -- water curtain and collapse -- after
spraying across the hole so no one can see, at 10:15 a.m. everyone is ordered
away "because another plane is coming" -- as soon as the truck
leaves the wall collapses
-
- The Pentagon was hit. The main fire was out in less than
10 minutes -- but a firetruck positioned south of the crash was spraying
water northward creating a curtain of spray that concealed the damage (or
lack of damage) done to at the first-floor level. (Remember, early clear
photos show there is a pillar still standing where a starboard engine would
have had to have hit had the plane (or missile) been a 757. The spraying
of this curtain preventing a clear view of the damage continued until suddenly
everyone was ordered away from the building because "another plane
was on its way" -- this order was given after Flight 93 had crashed
(at 10:03 a.m.) and after the President had already been notified it had
crashed. This order to evacuate came from the Secret Service. At 10:15
fire and rescue workers removed to the cover of the famous Washington Blvd.
overpass (of lamppost and black taxi fame) to the southwest of the crash.
Think how absurd this is!!! The firetruck screening the damage from view
was removed and then -- in the same minute -- the wall collapsed over the
crime scene, destroyin the evidence of pillar 16 and all other evidence
of the damage imprint -- including the unexplained hole and damage on the
second floor between columns 19 and 20. The removal of personnel and the
collapse are both given as happening at 10:15 a.m.
-
- Clearly the truck was spraying to cover the evidence
while preparations were made to demolish the the wall destroying the evidence.
The almost instantaneous following of the collapse after the removal of
the curtain of water -- the events happening within a minute of each other
-- is powerful evidence.
- It should also be noted that since the nose plane is
determined to have struck pillar 14 and that the plane hit the west wall
from the southwest, coming at a 50-degree angle, the interior damage must
have been more extensive to the northeast of the crash point -- yet it
is a section that is west and southwest of the crash hole that comes down
-- where presumably less damage to support pillars was done. The wall,
I am suggesting, should not have collapsed as it did.
-
- The case for sabotage -- for destruction of evidence
-- by persons inside the Pentagon is strong just on the basis of this information
-- but when combined with what we have established about the Boeing flying
over the Pentagon along a course that completely misses the lamppost on
Washington Blvd -- the case is made beyond any minute shadow of a doubt.
-
- -- the collapse and the withdrawal for fear of another
plane on the way came within one minute of each other -- After spraying
across the hole so no one can see the limited damage to the first floor
(fortunately clear pictures were taken before this), and continued emitting
a curtain of water until everyone was everyone is ordered away "because
another plane is on its way" -- even though Flight 93 had crashed
and the President and DoD were notified -- yet this warning originated
with the Secret Service, not the air force. Fire and rescue workers at
the Pentagon in response to the attack are evacuated to a nearby highway
overpass -- the truck leaves and within two minutes the wall that the fire
truck's spray had been concealing suddenly collapses -- the evidence of
the wall damaged by the crash now gone forever.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Less than a minute after the truck is withdrawn, the
building collapses destroying the evidence of the imprint.
-
-
-
- Evidence of the imprint destroyed by demolition
-
-
- There is much more evidence to share. There are at least
seven other lines of evidence as compelling as this one, that have been
known since 2002, but largely neglected thanks to gatekeepers and false-theories
that have been floated to cause distraction and repel people of sound judgement.
See for example:
-
- http://www.bedoper.com/eastman/small_plane/index.html
-
- I think we have the evidence we need to convince
the town that they are being tricked.
-
- The "9-11 Truthers" you see on Fox news (Jim
Fetzer and Morgan Reynolds for example) are frauds seeking to misinform
people about what real investigators have learned from available 9-11 evidence.
Here are some investigation sites that I recommend to people seeking the
truth and justice:
-
-
- http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
-
- http://journalof911studies.com/
- http://physics911.net/
-
- Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!
- http://www.ae911truth.org/
-
|