9-11 – More On What Really Happened At The Pentagon

(Dick Eastman)   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 accounts.
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 Tar Baby.
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
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
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.
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64
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
http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Galileo-Mathematician-Florence/dp/0268008698
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.
Sincerely,
Rolf Lindgren
Barrett Campaign Adviser
www.barrettforcongress.us
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)
(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 behind him.
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.
Oy!
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 he was
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 on course.'”
– “Journalist Witnesses Pentagon Crash.” eWeek.com, 13 Sep 2001
www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,9306,00.asp
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 (east).
This means that the plane that Sucherman saw could not have been the plane that downed the pole that Sucherman had left behind him.
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.
Evidence:
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: info@odeion.org
To: Ardeshir Mehta ; Craig R
Cc: 9-11-NeXuS@yahoogroups.com ; info@odeion.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 attack evidence.
Hi Ardeshir
What dictionary are you using? According to
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
{quote}
theory
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.
Origin:
1590?1600; < LL the?ria < Gk the?ría a viewing, contemplating, equiv. to the?r(eîn) to view + -ia -y 3
?Synonyms
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.
{unquote}
P.
—–Original Message—–
From: Ardeshir Mehta [mailto:ardeshir@mac.com]
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 06:44 PM
To: ‘Craig R’
Cc: 9-11-NeXuS@yahoogroups.com, info@odeion.org, ‘Anthony Lawson’, ‘Adam Syed’,
‘Chris Gruener’, ‘Edward Rynerson’, ‘Dick Eastman’, ‘galen’
Subject: Re: Discussion from March regarding Pentagon attack evidence.
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.
Cheers,
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?

http://rense.com/general86/911.htm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Show some support!

We are 100% Listener & User supported!! Every little bit helps us continue. Donations help fund the site and keep all the free information on it. Thanks in advance and KEEP UP THE FIGHT!!!

Visitor Map

Subscribe For New Posts & Updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to FederalJack and Popeyeradio and you will receive notifications of new posts by email.

News Categories
The Wigner Effect
Col. L Fletcher Prouty: Secret Team