Further reply to Don Fredrick, a man representative of the the good citizen who accepts the official story out of the habit of loyalty (which is a good thing to have, except in times of corruption and conspiracy to commit high treason.)

 

From: Don Fredrick

To: Dick Eastman

Sent: June 20, 2009

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 blurryPentagon photograph that, to me, simply looks like a blurry photograph.

 

one more reply from Dick Eastman:

 

In this series of postings I have been providing proof of a treasonous mass-murder false-flag operation, a conspiracy in which the leadership of the Pentagon necessarily played a leading role.  When we justice finally move, for the sake of the September 11 dead, of the families of all the victims and the families brought to mourning and deprivation by the wars brought on by that provocateur frame-up. 

 

I have presented independent lines of proof which establish that the official story of the Pentagon attack is a concocted lie, since none of this black-op deception could have succeeded without the complicity of Pentagon leadership -- a very elite club with most definite commonalities of background, loyalties, connections and secrecy.

 

There is many more aspects of the attack on the Pentagon that have been uncovered but are not yet known to the general public. What I have presented to you in this series is merely a "calling card" establishing bona fides for the right to present more evidence exposing other aspects of the lie. I have gone further than what I have shared here. I have followed all of the counter-arguments of the other side and have detected deliberate falsehood in much of it, which falsehood is in itself data in support of the conspiracy. I am willing to share evidence with people in these other directions, sending additional information to whomever asks for it. My address: oldickeastman@q.com

 

The important thing is that the true facts of the Pentagon case are as definite as the established fact of bombs going off in the WTC towers apart from the two airplane crashes and the established fact that three WTC skyscrappers were brought down, not by airplanes and kerosene fires, but by thermite devices and other demolition measures ensuring the complete destruction of the buildings and the deaths of all who still were in them.

 

In closing this review of the Pentagon evidence, I discuss a few other aspects of the event that can cause confusion unless addressed directly. The first of these is the presence of what I call "distraction planes" over Washington restricted airspace that day.

 

Here is part of a posting of mine from 2003:

 

The Distraction Planes

 

The use of three aircraft at once over Arlington and D.C. to distract from the ground-level stealth attack of the killer jet tells it all.

 

1. The C-130 that followed the Boeing in overflying the crash

 

2. The four engine jet over the Capitol and White House

 

3. The Boeing itself, before it "disappeared into the exposion," only to begin its landing at Reagan National within a minute of overflying the crash.

Review the actions of each of these planes and there can be no doubt as to their function as distractions in a mass-murder psy-op conducted by top leaders in the White House, the Pentagon, the FAA, the FBI and the CIA.

The work of 9-11 investigators is now finished. The guilty have been identified and their guilt proven. Now comes the test of the American people and of justice in this land. I am confident that justice will now be served.

Dick Eastman

223 S. 64th Ave.

Yakima, Washington

 

 

Aerial Distraction #1 -- From the west came the C-130 following behind the Boeing and overflying the crash, actually going through the column of smoke,  just 30 seconds after the the explosion  -- supplying a "plausible-deniability" answer any who might later claim to have seen more than one plane at the crash or to have seen a large plane overfly the crash.

 

 

http://tm.wc.ask.com/r?t=an&s=a&uid=2d8aee938d8aee938&sid=154EF5323F2F682F3&qid=

EAD42B03368FEE44B12C42A11D251580&io=0&sv=za5cb0dc1&ask=Military+Aircraft++

C-130++photograph&uip=d8aee938&en=is&eo=-100&pt=&ac=4&qs=0&pg=1&ep=1&da_

iid=&da_rhs=227785&da_ad=&da

 

Want a BIG distraction in the sky? The C-130 is the very best choice they could have made.

However, big as it was, think how few witnesses or news reporters  mentioned the C-130  overflying  the Pentagon crash site just 30 seconds after the attack! 

Aerial Distraction #2 -- In the east, a four-engine large jet doing dives  over the Capitol Building in restricted airspace leading up to and immediately before the moment of the the crash drawing all eyes to  that quarter and away from the vicinity from which the real killer jet, flying only six feet above the landscape and at more than 700 mph, would sneak up upon the Pentagon.

Photo taken by Linda Brookhart, TFI VP, in restricted airspace near the White House on September 11, 2001. While identity of this airplane is unknown, it is not the plane that struck the Pentagon minutes later. And nothing has been heard of it since, until Joe Vials found the following BBC video tape of this same plane while in the same dive that he had recorded on September 11 -- except that Joe believed the BBC that this was the real plane, and used this clip from the broadcast to "disprove" the small-plane thesis. But, as investigators immediately pointed out this is a four engine plane and the wings are swept back too far and the root of the wing is far too close to the cockpit for this to be a Boeing 757. BUT IT DID MAKE A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE DISTRACTION WHILE DIVING OVER THE CAPITOL AFTER EVERYONE WAS AWARE OF THE WTC ATTACKS EARLIER THAT MORNING.

"There wasn't anything in the air, except for one airplane, and it looked like it was loitering over Georgetown, in a high, left-hand bank", explained U.S. Army Brigadier General Clyde Vaughn, director of military support, to CNN. "That may have been the plane. I have never seen one on that (flight) pattern."

* * *

O'Brien asked the controller sitting next to her, Tom Howell, if he saw it too. "I said, 'Oh my God, it looks like he's headed to the White House', » recalls Howell. &laqno; I was yelling . 'We've got a target headed right for the White House!' At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and theCapitol."

&laqno; The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that wasa military plane » says O'Brien. &laqno; You don't fly a 757 in that manner."

Here is the same Distraction #2 plane as shown by the BBC on Sept. 13, 2001

Internet journalist and former (?) MI6 agent Joe Vialls says he found this on a video cassette tape, a recording he made September 13, 2001 of a BBC broadcast.  Vialls thought he had proven that Flight 77, the Boeing 757 had dived into the Pentagon -- and others thought it dived into the grass and then bounced into the west wall -- as witnesses' minds attempted to make sense of a psy-op involving three distraction aircraft.

Aerial Distraction #3 --  Boeing 757, AMerican Airlines Flight 77  itself, as it came in low from the west, passing the Sheraton Hotel very close on the south side, and coming directly over the Naval Annex on its way to overfly the crash point. (see below for new evidence of this). 

Also -- think that another airliner -- a four engine job was over restricted airspace, over washington dc doing dives!!!! that this person photographed and that was caught on the tv that Vials showed from the videotaping he did on Sept 11 --- THAT PLANE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE AND ITS ONLY PURPOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO DISTRACT EYES FROM SOMEWHERE --- BUT WHY DISTRACT EYES FROM THE BOEING BY HAVING A BOEING DOING DIVES OVER THE WHITE HOUSE?????? unless... unless there was an ANOTHER  plane you did not wanted to be sure  people would not notice

the Boeing iteslef drew eyes -- but also the C-140 and also the mystery airliner

and of course the presence of the mystery  airliner in restricted airspace blows away the official story --

 

========================================

 

THE SHERATON AND THE ANNEX WERE USED TO LINE UP THE BOEING FOR THE OVERFLY

 

The following photo shows how easy this was:   

 

 

 

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/022341/L/

 

 

Sheraton Hotel and Annex are  shown directly under the cockpit of the plane; the west wall of Pentagon visible at the left of the picture. These structures were most likey guides to the Boeing in finding the right path for the flyover of the crash -- a path that would keep the Boeing north of the path of the killer jet and out of its way.

 

The instructions to the Boeing 757 pilot (remote or in cockpit) could have been as easy as this:

1)  Head east  passing the Sheraton close on your left

 

 

 

 

2) proceed straight over the roofs of the Annex buildings to the flyover point in the big-show deception;

 

 

 

 

Then the getaway:

 

 

 

(3) Turn to starboard (over the 14th street bridge) and land at Reagan National Airport where a runway begins exactly one mile from the crash. 

 

 

 

 

 

The first local radio reports were of a crash on the 14th Street Bridge. The first fire call was to the north end or Reagan International.  

 

 

 

 

Once the turn was made over the 14th Street Bridge -- a normal place jetliners, "Flight 77" may have landed on the south-eastern-most runway or simply joined cue of planes ordered down for unscheduled landings in the chaos of the emergency.

 

 

 

 

or perhaps something like this:

 

 

 

 

 

Once landed at Reagan Flight 77 taxied to a hanger in which it either met its end like a new BMW in the chop shop of international-car-theives or was given new livery to fly again when the airport reopened. 

 

Reagan National Airport reopened a month after other US airports.

 

 

 

 

There is more to tell and more details still to be uncovered. The important thing is that the official story is now disproven and the highest treason involving the top Pentagon leadership has become in inescapable implication.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These two pictures were relased in March 2002 and confirmed as authentic by a Pentagon spokesman.

 

 

 

 

Note the very bright flash of the initial explosion. Very likely this was momentarily blinding to witnesses like the flashbulb of a camera.

 

 

 

 

For reference:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now you know what happened. Now look at the systematic presentation of evidence that will prove the truth to any impartial grand jury in the country.

 

http://rense.com/general76/missing.htm

 

 

The 911 Mystery Plane

First in a Series

Mark H. Gaffney

4-5-7

 

On September 11 2001, as the eyes of the nation were focused on the gruesome events at the World Trade Center, the networks interrupted their coverage in New York with a breaking story from Washington. A large plane had just been sighted over the White House. Exactly when it first appeared is not certain, but the reports aired at about the time of the pentagon strike, or just before. Witnesses who saw the mystery plane say it circled over Washington. CNN's Senior White House correspondent John King saw it while standing in Lafayette Park, directly across from the White House. King reported live that "about 10 minutes ago, there was a white jet circling overhead. Now, you generally don't see planes in the area over the White House. That is restricted air space. No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky."[1]

 

Kate Snow, another CNN correspondent, was standing two blocks from the Capitol when she saw the plane. Snow mentioned it on-air, adding that a security guard told her it was responsible for the decision to evacuate the seat of government.[2] In his book Against All Enemies, counter-terrorism czar Richard A. Clark mentions that the decision to evacuate the White House was made after a warning from the Secret Service about the approach of an unidentified aircraft.[3] Was this the mystery plane? ABC, NBC and FOX News picked up the story on 9/11. CNN actually filmed the mysterious plane as it flew over the Capitol, but, unfortunately, it was too far away to identify.

 

The sighting of a large white plane above the White House and Capitol on September 11, 2001 was very strange, because the airspace over Washington is probably the most restricted on the planet. At the time, the World Trade Center in New York was in flames. Hundreds of people had already perished. Multiple hijackings were known to be in progress. The only planes that should have been in the skies over Washington were fighters for the purpose of protecting the nation's capital. Yet, as we know, the city was undefended°©°©°©totally exposed. Scrambled F-16 fighters from Langley AFB, located near Norfolk, Virginia, failed to establish a Combat Air Patrol (CAP) over Washington until shortly before 10 AM°©°©°©much too late. And subsequently, as we also know, the 911 Commission absolved the Joint Chiefs of all responsibility. The 9/11 panel put the blame for the security breach squarely on the FAA for failing to notify NORAD of the hijackings. Incidentally, the pentagon has also dismissed the news reports cited above. To this day the US military claims that it knows nothing about a large plane circling over Washington on 9/11. So, what is going on, here? Did a large unidentified plane circle over Washington, or not? And if so, what does it mean?

 

After a crime it is standard procedure for police detectives to interrogate witnesses who were at the scene, and cross-check their testimony in an attempt to reconstruct what actually happened. Had the members of the 9/11 Commission been serious about their charge to provide "the fullest possible account" of the horrific events of September 11 2001, they would have followed this kind of procedure. Certainly the news reports and eyewitness accounts merited close attention. These were obvious starting points for the official investigation. It was not necessary to go above and beyond the call of duty. Had the members of the panel merely done their job they would have discovered the evidence I am about to present and, in all likelihood, would also have drawn the correct conclusions. But the simple fact is, the commission never investigated the mystery plane. The 9/11 Commission Report doesn't even mention it°©°©°©one of many grave omissions.

 

After I recently posted an article about 9/11, an independent investigator directed me to some stunning evidence°©°©°©of which I was unaware°©°©°©about the mystery plane. I was surprised to learn that this evidence has been available on the internet for quite some time. It seems that during the evacuation of the White House on 9/11 a woman captured an amazing photo of the mystery plane. Linda Brookhart, at the time Vice President of the Taxpayer Federation of Illinois, was in Washington on September 11 attending a National Taxpayers Conference in the Old Executive Office Building (located immediately next to the White House) when she and many others were told to vacate the building. Linda explained to me that after she walked outside she was standing in the street talking with a security guard when she just happened to look up and see the plane.[4] She then snapped this excellent photo with her Pentax. It refutes the pentagon and, fortunately, also enables us to identify the mystery plane°©°©°©as we will see.

 

Nor is this all. The same investigator also told me about another equally stunning piece of evidence. As it happened, a second individual also filmed the mystery plane on September 11 as it made a banking turn over Washington; and this short video segment even appeared in a made-for-TV docudrama about Flight 93. The two-hour movie was titled The Flight that Fought Back, and it aired on the Discovery Channel in August 2005. Once alerted to its existence, I had no difficulty locating this short segment on the internet. Someone had pulled it from the film and posted it at You-Tube as part of a short melange of video footage about 9/11. Anyone with access to cyberspace may view it on line.[5] The following still-shot was taken from this footage.

 

A DVD of the original Discovery Channel program is also available, and can be purchased at Amazon.com. The crucial segment appears 47 minutes into the film (in scene four). It is not a part of the dramatic production per se, but is a short segment of raw documentary footage embedded in the film. The crucial segment is very brief, only about three-seconds long, which may help to explain why this remarkable footage has not attracted more attention. Frankly, I was astonished when I learned about it, since I had seen no reference to this video evidence in the published literature about 9/11, nor on any of the many 9/11 web sites. I now realize I simply missed it. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has long featured an excellent forum discussion about this video.[6] Although the cameraman has not yet been identified, there is every reason to believe the footage is bona fide.

 

As I've noted, in the video the plane makes a banking turn. The angle is fortunate, because it brought the plane's unique features and markings into plain view. There can be no doubt as to the plane's identity. The aircraft belonged to the US Air Force. Moreover, this was no ordinary plane. It was an E-4B, the US military's most advanced electronics platform. Even a casual comparison shows that the still-shot from the docudrama matches an official photo (see below) of the E-4B, from a USAF web site.[7] There can be no mistake.

 

The plane is a modified Boeing 747-200. Notice the white color, the US flag painted on the vertical stabilizer (i.e, the tail), and the blue stripe and insignia on the fuselage. The clincher, however, is the "bump" directly behind the bulging 747 cockpit. It is clearly discernible in both photos. No other plane has this piggy-backed appendage. It is unique to the E-4B, and is integral to the plane's military role as an airborne command center. The appendage contains a communication satellite dish and perhaps other advanced electronic hardware. In fact, this is the same plane that Linda Brookhart photographed outside the White House. Although her vantage point was not ideal°©°©°©Linda was standing in the street looking almost straight up when she snapped the shot°©°©°©nonetheless, a careful inspection shows that the plane in her photo is an E-4B. Notice, the aircraft has four engines and all of the characteristics of a Boeing 747. In addition to the white color, which is also a match, there is another crucial detail that positively identifies the airplane. Notice the tiny blue spot near the rear of the aircraft. Several close-ups of an E-4B clearly show that this blue spot is simply the place where the blue stripes painted on the fuselage come together at the rear of the aircraft.

 

This is the only place on the 747 fuselage where the E-4B's otherwise conspicuous blue stripes are visible, from beneath. No other airplane has this combination of features. Linda explained to me that at the time of the evacuation she believed the White House was the target of the attack. She snapped the picture before the towering plume of smoke became visible at the pentagon, which suggests that the E-4B was already circling at the time of the pentagon strike. Linda later contacted the FBI about her photograph. After she developed the film an agent came by her office to pick up a copy. But she never heard back. Nor did the 9/11 Commission ask her to testify. In fact, they never even contacted her.[8]

 

No Ordinary Plane Again, I must emphasize: this is no ordinary plane. The E-4B's official designation is the National Emergency Airborne Command Post (NEACP), pronounced "knee-cap." But the aircraft is more commonly known as the "doomsday plane," because its premier function is to serve as a flying command, control and communications (C3) center in the event of a national emergency°©°©°©or nuclear war. When the president travels on Air Force One, an E-4B usually follows behind the presidential entourage. Unlike Air Force One, however, the E-4B can be refueled in midair and so has considerably greater range. For this reason, when the president goes abroad on long trips he occasionally flies on an E-4B to save travel time. The plane also doubles as a mobile office for the Secretary of Defense. Recently, for example, when the newly appointed Defense Secretary Robert Gates traveled to London for talks with Prime Minister Tony Blair, he rode on an E-4B. According to various reports, his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, often used the plane, and much preferred it.

 

A recent article in the Air Force Civil Engineer describes the E-4B as "a truly amazing" aircraft, and provides more details about its impressive specs.[9] The $250 million dollar aircraft has all of the advanced electronics needed for world-wide communication. If Air Force One can be accurately described as a flying White House, then, the E-4B is a substitute pentagon. The plane's electronics cover the full radio spectrum, from extremely low frequency (ELF) to high frequency (UHF). Which enables the E-4B to communicate with all US military commands, world-wide, including tactical and strategic forces, naval ships, planes, nuclear-armed missiles, even submarines. In short, the E-4B is a fully equipped communications platform and can serve as an airborne command center for all US military forces in a national crisis. The plane carries its own electrical-generating plant to power its electronic hardware, which is also shielded against the damaging electromagnetic pulse (EMP) effects generated by nuclear explosions. Even the plane's white color is a design feature°©°©°© not simply cosmetic. Its purpose is to help the E-4B survive in a nuclear battlefield by reflecting heat away from the plane.

 

The E-4B carries a crew of 64, but can accommodate an additional 50 passengers, for a total of 114. The large 747 fuselage includes command and work areas, conference and briefing rooms, as well as an operations center or battle station. In addition the plane reportedly has a rest area, bunks for sleeping, even a galley stocked with a week of provisions. The Air Force has four E-4Bs, and they are normally assigned to Offutt AFB, near Omaha, Nebraska. Offutt is the home of STRATCOM, i.e., the Strategic Command (formerly the Strategic Air Command).

 

Practicing Armageddon According to one report, on September 11, 2001 three of the E-4Bs were participating in a live command-level exercise known as Global Guardian.[10] The exercise is an annual event, and is staged to test the readiness of the US military's command and control procedures involved in waging thermonuclear war. The 2001 exercise started the week before September 11 under the directorship of Admiral Richard Mies, commander-in-chief of STRATCOM. According to various reports, the drill was in "full swing" at the time of the 9/11 attack. Numerous other military commands were also involved, including NORAD. While few details have been released, we know that in previous years the US Space Command, the Air Combat Command, and the US Atlantic and Pacific Fleets were also involved.[11]

 

Starting in the 1990s, Global Guardian included pre-planned mock attacks upon the military's computer and information systems. For example, during the 1998 exercise "terrorists" attempted to disrupt STRATCOM's internal communications by hacking into its computers, and also by tying up its phone/FAX lines with phony messages.[12] Evidently, these "terrorist attacks" were at least partly successful, although the details have not been released. In recent years, the military has incorporated similar "attacks" into Global Guardian exercises. However, it is not known if these were a part of the 2001 drill. We do know that at the time of the 9/11 attack one of the E- 4Bs was en route to Offutt AFB with a high-level military advisory panel on board, including its chairman, retired Lt. General Brent Scowcroft, evidently for the purpose of observing the exercise. The role of this panel, known as the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (FIAB), is to monitor US intelligence agencies. As we know, STRATCOM abruptly terminated the 2001 exercise at 9:03 AM, when Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower.[13] However, the E-4Bs remained aloft. [14]

 

In previous years the military always staged Global Guardian in October or November; and the 2001 exercise was likewise originally scheduled for October, according to various reports.[15] Curiously, however, for reasons never disclosed, the Joint Chiefs changed the plan and conducted the 2001 exercise during the week of September 11. The following year the date reverted back. The 2002 Global Guardian came off in October, as in previous years, and this has continued to be the case.[16]

 

All of which raises disturbing questions. Why did the Joint Chiefs change the date of Global Guardian in 2001? Even more importantly, why was the world's most sophisticated electronics warfare plane circling over Washington at the time of the September 11 attack? Recently, when the investigator who contacted me filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) concerning the presence of the E-4B over Washington on 9/11, the FAA responded that it "had no knowledge" of such a plane. My contact also shared the basic information presented in this article with his Congressman, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), and requested that he look into the matter. Schiff then made a formal inquiry through official channels, but was told that the Air Force knows nothing. Obviously, the pentagon is lying. If the E-4B was on a legitimate mission on September 11, why does the military deny its presence? Why would they do this? When people lie it is generally because they have something to hide. Is the US military any different?

 

Catch-22: The Need for a New Investigation Although Linda Brookhart's photo provides sufficient detail to positively ID the mystery plane, the short segment from the Discovery Channel docudrama is extremely important corroborating evidence. For which reason, myself and others have been working diligently to learn more about it. The E-4B footage occurs in the Discovery film in the context of the evacuation of the White House and Capitol building on 9/11. This definitely places it in Washington on the day of the attack. However, we still don't know who filmed it. Nor does the footage include any visual evidence linking it to Washington. According to the credits for The Flight that Fought Back, a London- based company named Brook Lapping produced the docudrama for the Discovery Channel. When I contacted Brook Lapping I was told they used the E-4B footage under license from FOX News, which holds the copyright. Brook Lapping also informed me they could provide no further assistance in the matter. After numerous phone calls I was led to a company called ITN Source, which handles all of FOX's licensing contracts. A cordial individual at their Burbank office assisted me. However, a search failed to locate the short segment in the FOX News archive, at which point I was informed that there was nothing more they could do. My repeated attempts to contact the FOX legal department were also fruitless. FOX never responded to my queries. Thus, my investigation reached a blind alley. Evidently the same thing has happened to others. According to Linda Brookhart, "Every time someone has tried to research this plane it becomes a dead end."[17] Shades of Catch-22

 

All of this underscores the urgent need for a new 9/11 investigation: It must be nonpartisan, independent, adequately funded, and empowered with the authority to subpoena witnesses. Representatives of FOX News must be brought before a genuine panel and made to testify under oath about the whereabouts of this important evidence; and why it was made to go bye-bye. Without a true investigation, we will probably never learn the truth about September 11.

 

 

Mark H  

markhgaffney@earthlink.net

 

Some say the killer object was a missle, but I say the evidence taken in its entirety points to an single-engine jet, guided by remote control and under 70 feet long. The logical choice would be a remote-controlled, or pre-programed F-16, since F-16's are the usual plane seen guarding Washington and the Israelis know them well. The F-16 may not have been the killer object -- it is a demonstrated certainty that it was not a Boeing 757! -- but nothing fits the evidence and the needs of the perpetrators better than the F-16. So here is my prime suspect, identified in 2003:

 

 

 

 

The F-16 Falcon - Probable Murder Weapon - equipped for remote-control warfare

 

 

Span: 32 ft. 10 in.

Length: 49 ft. 6 in.

Height: 16 ft. 6 in.

Weight: 29,896 lbs. loaded

Armament: One air-to-ground missile and electronic countermeasure pods

Ground Control: Structural provisions and "power by wire" systems architecture expanding multi-role performance to include precision strike, night attack and beyond-visual-range

interception missions utilizing touch-sensitive remote virtual cockpit displays.

Targeting: Remote targeting lasers and computers, and new autopilot and ground-avoidance systems allowing faster remote controlled flight while seeking and attacking targets.

Maneuvering: digital flight controls, a voice- activated maneuvering system allowing the pilot to "point" the aircraft in unusual flight attitudes.

Engine: One Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-200 of 23,830 lbs. thrust.

Crew: None (remote controlled)

Maximum speed: 1,345 mph.

Maximum Takeoff Weight: 37,500 pounds (16,875 kilograms)

Cruising speed: 577 mph.

Range: 1,407 miles

Remote Control: System Planning Corporation's Command Transmitter Systems (CTS)

Frequency Range: 400-550 MHz in 100-kHz steps

RF Output Power: Exciter: 20 Watts; HPA: 1 kW RF

Power Control: 1-dB steps, 60-dB total range

Antenna VSWR: 2:1 continuously, 50 ohms nom.

Harmonics: -50 dBc at 1 kW

Spurious: -80 dBc at 1 kW

Modulation: FM

Deviation: ±300 kHz

Modulation Range: Internal: 7.5-73.95 kHz (IRIG-B tone frequencies)

Prime Power:180-228 VAC 3-phase Wye connection ...

RF Power Monitor, and Exciter: supplied by 120 VAC nom. single-phase by the HPA power supply

 

 

 

Given these "qualifications" consider now the following facts:

 

A fully remote-controlled F-16 was retired to the General Dynamics museum early in 2001, perhaps with its remote control equipment removed. At nearly the same time Doug Zakheim, the Chairman of System Planning Corporation International, which makes the remote control equipment discribed above, joined the Pentagon leadership in a strategic position where he could oversee both production and financing of operations fitting his peculiar expertise. Here is what Steven M. St. John tells us about Dov Zakheim:

 

"Harking back to the Zionist-Neo-Conservative principals of the PNAC, I note that one of them, Rabbi Dov Zakheim, was the Chairman of the International Division of System Planning Corporation (SPC), which designs, manufactures and distributes highly sophisticated technologies for remote control of aerial vehicles. Rabbi Zakheim left his position at SPC in early 2001 when President George W. Bush appointed him Under Secretary of Defense and Chief Financial Officer at the Pentagon. Thus, as Comptroller, Rabbi Zakheim had command of the Department of Defense's labyrinthine, bottomless accounts for six full months before the attacks of 11 September 2001. As a Zionist, Rabbi Zakheim had an interest in putting American muscle on Mesopotamian patrol. As signatory to a document including a psycho suggestion that "a new Pearl Harbor" would quicken Zionist-Neo-Conservative designs for global military dominance, Rabbi Zakheim had a motive to bring these plans to fruition by finding or even creating such a pretext for war. As a former corporate executive with a background in technologies for remote control of aerial vehicles, Rabbi Zakheim had a way - remote control of aircraft to create "a New Pearl Harbor" which would launch the USA into invasion and occupation under false pretext. Again, the 9/11 Commissioners failed to take these circumstances into account and to weigh and consider them.

 

Source: http://www.rense.com/general62/crit.htm

 

Comment in closing:

 

I am not Jim Fetzer or Morgan Reynolds who say that no planes hit the WTC. I am not Karl Schwartz and Jon Carlson who with no evidence and showing pictures that contain nothing that he claims for them insists for no reason at all that a ancient A3 crashed at the Pentagon or "Agent Smiley and Webfairy" in 2002 insisted that the killer jet in the security camera photo was an ancient Bell X15 from the 1950's (the only one of which hangs in the Smithsonian) -- ALL OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE PUT OUT THEIR deliberately ludicrous and repellant counter theories -- each getting enormous play from the disorganized mixed-bag mass of loudmouth "9-11 truthers" with their conferences where the kooks jeer and crowd out the real investigators -- in fact I was never invited to one of these well founded "truther" events and always felt supreme frustration and anguish as idiot theories took center stage and drove away  the public, which was originally open minded. So you are getting what the real investigators have known since 2002, but were never able to get out. (I also was never interviewed by any of the people making documentaries on this subject either. (David Griffin of course is an exception -- cf. the Chapter on the Pentagon attack in his first book, 9-11 The New Pearl Harbor . So don't think because you have followed the blogs and lists and saw the documentaries that you have seen the real evidence about the Pentagon event. I have seen more deliberate acts of sabotage by phoney truth seekers than I could ever begin to describe -- so I instead focus on the evidence that refutes the "official" raghead's-with-box-cutters" conspiracy theory of the crime-controlled government and media.

 

Or, perhaps I am wrong. You tell me. Tell me how much of the evidence I am showing you was already familiar to you and tell me, why you are at it, you haven't seen any of this before when it has all been known since 2002 And yet you tell me you are done having an "opened mind." The Popular Mechanics completely by-passed the Dick Eastman arguments, and when I caught author Chertoff in a phone call to the Art Bell Show, Chertoff stated that they knew about it but hadn't gotten around to it. When I began to list some of the ommissions, Mr. Bell cut me off. And when I mailed this information to the 9-11 Commission and when I phoned I was told that my messages were being "directed to the right authorities" -- but of course no mention of any of this evidence found its way into the Commission's report.

Conclusion -- you now have a very big peril confirmed -- conspiracy effecting the destruction of America, of Americans. You can continue to ignore the peril, but you no longer can deny its reality.

 

I hope we can all work together for a solution that will spare lives and prevent any such super crime in the future.

 

Dick Eastman

Yakima, Washington

oldickeastman@q.com

 

What would he do?

 

My thanks to Jeff Rense and James Neff for giving this information its day in the court of public opinion. I know it was a big job, Mr. Neff, the kind of work you do every day year after year to to give us the advantage of being informed.

 

Dick Eastman

Yakima, Washington

 

p.s. and for all of the other articles of mine you have prepared and put out