-Caveat Lector- In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, May 23, 2004 at 09:23:51AM -0700 Organization: http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911
Mike Ruppert, 757 pilot Ralph Omholt, Kee Dewdney, Brad Mayeux, Chris Bollyn, Carol Valentine, John Kaminski, Gerard Holmgren, Thierry Meissan, Jerry Longspaugh (physics911.org), Jim Hoffman, and many other 9-11 researchers believe that if the airliner (which _was_ reliably witnessed flying toward the Pentagon) had hit the stone wall of the building, a major portion of its 100,000 pounds of aluminum and steel would have been left on the lawn, and much of the fuel would have burned there and scorched the grass also. Neither of these things happened. Furthermore there was a large obstruction directly in front of the hole, which if the plane had cleared it, the hole would have been substantially higher. Also, Omholt has a picture of a *rusted* piece of airliner debris inside the Pentagon, apparently a landing gear strut, which must have been planted there, and gotten from a junkyard, because those planes were maintained in utterly spotless condition: http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/exp.htm As to the small plane and missile(s), Eastman has testimony from some witnesses consistent with this, but their experience was of course very brief. The security camera pictures, if accurate, show an aircraft with shorter body-to-tail length than a 757 (Eastman's "stegosaurus proof"), although these pictures may have been altered by the government. However, they may not have been altered. sometimes we give the "intelligence" agencies more credit for intelligence than they deserve. Note that they released the Nick Berg video with dozens of inconsistencies that belie the government story, and that the CIA animation of the TWA-800 explosion was immediately evaluated as a total farce. In any case the alternative to the small-plane/missile scenario is simply explosives and incendiaries placed inside the Pentagon. And it's entirely possible that both were used. The downing of the light poles is not evidence that the 757 hit the building, because they could have been brought down by other very simple means, such as thin steel wires pulled by small buried radio-controlled electric motors (after the poles' mounting bolts were loosened), this set up by agents dressed as maintenance men in the wee hours the night before. Thus the airliner did not have to be low enough to knock down the poles, and so could easily have flown over the Pentagon. It is unclear why Kris Millegan and a couple of others ran a smear campaign against this explanation a few weeks ago, confounding it with the highly improbable WTC-hologram idea by labelling its proponents as "NO PLANE NUTTERS", and claiming that it would have required "dozens of men in black" in full view at the time the poles were downed. In fact, that would have been done by simple remote control radio signals, and the buried motor boxes -- at most one foot cubes -- would have been far simpler to design than the radio-controlled "battle robots" that hobbyists build for competition on TV. Security at Reagan National Airport, one mile further on, was run by an Israeli company, so the plane could have landed there, had its numbers repainted, and later taken off again. A previous poster wrote: >> I seriously doubt that Mr. Eastman has ever been to this area. >> If he had, he might realize that thousands of people would >> have seen the overflight of this plane, since there are large >> highways full of commuters, rapid rail line, and numerous large >> office buildings full of military officials and contractors -- >> many of them would have noticed the hitherto unprecedented >> flight of a jet coming from the direction of the Pentagon in >> a place that planes do not normally fly. It is near National >> Airport, but planes landing there don't pass that direction. Relatively few people have come forward as witnesses to the far more unusual event of the 757 flying very low *toward* the Pentagon, even though this happened within sight of many drivers momentarily stopped on Washington Boulevard. A plane simply coming in for a landing from an unusual direction would not attract any attention. >> Also, they need more time to lower their landing gear - >> planes need more than a mile to accomplish this. Yes, so all it had to do was fly once around in a normal holding loop while lowering the wheels, and then land. As to the witnesses who claimed to have seen the 757 hit the Pentagon (although their testimony has been shown by Holmgren to contain very serious inconsistencies), a simple flash-powder and petroleum movie explosion triggered just as the plane flew over would have created a very convincing illusion. Finally, no motivation has surfaced for the Neocons to have wanted to murder their own Barbara Olson (unlike the Nixon mob crashing an airliner to kill Dorothy Hunt for blackmailing them!) so she (and some other passengers of Flight 77) may well be alive somewhere. Mark Bilk [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 09:23:51AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Vince Sauve posts: > >I would like to know what HARD evidence there is for a missile? The hole >is way too big for a missile. The squiggly white vapor seen in the first >Pentagon security camera frame is too wavy to be from a missile. I've seen >missiles in flight before and I have never seen such a wavy (up and down, >up and down) vapor before. To me that white vapor is definitely not >evidence of a missile. Also why bother with a missile attack when flight >77 will do? As I said before the hole is big enough for all of the most >massive parts of the 757 to crash through. The limestone showed fractures >on the pre collapse walls where the wing tips didn't have enough mass to >brake through. 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. 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. > >> 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. 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. >> >>Perhaps both the airliner AND a supplemental missile hit the Pentagon. >> 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? >> >>An analogy with the Kennedy assassinations: they gave Oswald a rifle, >> but they didn't depend on him to do the job. They gave Sirhan a pistol >but they had someone more reliable execute Bobby at close range. The >airliner is the cover story, but to make sure you hit the exact spot >with exactly the right explosive load, you want to send in a missile, >perhaps homed in on a secretly broadcast signal. You don't have to >make flight 77 disappear. Crash it too, though I have trouble >> believing that, even with missile back-up, they would let an alleged >hijacker's reflexes determine the point of impact of the plane on the >Pentagon. >> >> On Tuesday, May 11, 2004, at 12:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >wrote: >> > Mark Robinowitz posts: >> > At 9:48 PM -0700 2004-05-10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> Dick Eastman posts: >> >> >> >> Subject: INDEX OF BEST EVIDENCE 9-11 Pentagon >> >> >> >> Please note that this is not a formal write-up, but merely a >> >> memorandum >> > to alert you to the existence of this body of "best-evidence" >> > information. Include several links to many formal write ups, such as >> those at Physics911. >> > >> > Physics 9/11 is a website that asserts that a missile caused a plane >like imprint on the WTC north tower. There are numerous photos of >the north tower that clearly show the impact caused by large wings. >This is so easy to debunk that it raises serious questions about the >intent (or sanity) of the "missile attacked the WTC" advocates. >> > >> > Muddying the waters is an old tactic to confuse people from looking at >> the most credible material. >> >> >> >> You have each denigrated the finding that the Boeing 757 overflew the >> > Pentagon as a smaller aircraft, armed with missiles, was crashing >> directly below. I am convinced that in light of the following >> > compilation of independent lines of proof from a variety of evidence >and testimony, that your possition is not longer tenable. >> > >> > I seriously doubt that Mr. Eastman has ever been to this area. If he >> had, he might realize that thousands of people would have seen the >overflight of this plane, since there are large highways full of >commuters, rapid rail line, and numerous large office buildings full of >> > military officials and contractors -- many of them would have >> > noticed the hitherto unprecedented flight of a jet coming from the >> direction of the Pentagon in a place that planes do not normally fly. It >> > is near National Airport, but planes landing there don't pass that >> direction. Also, they need more time to lower their landing gear - >planes need more than a mile to accomplish this. >> > >> >> 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 >> > >> > This is from one of the participants in the 9/11 inquiry in SF ... >> > >> > I am aware that the five photos from the Pentagon >> > security camera are faked, but there are way more than >> > five photos. The earlier photos (and videos) that >> > appeared on television right after the hit are the ones >> > that clearly prove (to me) that no 757 hit the Pentagon. >> > >> > My feeling has been all along that the faked photos were >> > released purposely to muddy the waters. The Pentagon >> > knew these photos would be picked up by skeptics as >> > "proof" and that they would also be easily dismissed by >> > others as fake (they even changed the date to September >> > 12th). >> > >> > But again, I am not basing my belief on these faked >> > photos, but rather on the earlier photos. >> > >> > Either way, though, they have certainly succeeded in >> > muddying the waters so much that you are probably right >> > it is better to focus on WHERE the Pentagon was hit. >> > >> >> witnesses >> >> reporting 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) >> > >> > I haven't heard of any witnesses who report a plane LEAVING from the >> direction of the Pentagon, which is what the "two plane" theory >> > requires for it to be true. >> >> >> >> 7. Witnesses also >> >> >> >> a. heard a missile >> >> >> >> b. heard a sonic boom prior to blast >> >> >> >> c. smelled burning chordite after the blast >> > >> > Some also smelled jet fuel, for what that is worth. Perhaps the >> zionists ran around and poured jet fuel to confuse people. >> > >> > A much more sensible and accurate commenator, Fletcher Prouty, wrote >in "the Secret Team" that covert operations that are successful are kept >> small and relatively simple. The more elaborate theories of 9/11 tend to >> > be those with less evidence and are more difficult to show how they >could have been what happened. >> > >> > Mr. Eastman does not seem interested in mentioning what is 100% >provable and undisputed -- the fact the Pentagon was hit in the nearly >empty part, preferring to focus on the unprovable and disputed >> claims of what did or did not hit the Pentagon (but without any >> > primary evidence to back up his theories). >> > >> > I wouldn't hire him to be a professional investigator for a lawsuit. >> >> >> >> 11. The attack was made almost horizontally into the first-floor >> >> level -- consistent with a countour-hugging jet-fighter attack >> > >> > or a 757 being operated by remote control flight systems >> >> >> >> 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. >> > >> > That doesn't prove Eastman's theories on the "two planes" theory. >> > >> >> "responsible" 9-11 investigators >> >> think is a John Judge who is working for the coverup, for >> > >> > This is reminiscent of cointelpro type tactics, and it either a sign >of extreme obnoxiousness (mere disagreement on a detail does not >> > constitute corruption) or deliberate effort to sow dissension. www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
