“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he
cannot believe it exists”. -- J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Director 1924-1972, quoted in The
Elks Magazine (August 1956). "It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from
its [corrupt feudal] government." -- Thomas Paine. “Each of you, for himself, by himself
and on his own responsibility, must speak”. -- Mark Twain. “The money powers prey upon
the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more
despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than
beaurocracy. It denounces as public enemies all who question its methods or throw light
upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the
bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe.” -- President
Abraham Lincoln. “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary
act.” -- George Orwell.
From: Ole Gerstrøm
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 1:38 AM
Subject: Re: [frameup] Re: Question to Dick Eastman (Pentagon9-11) –
Here in Copenhagen we are progressing. I gave a lecture on 911 in the Frederiksberg
Rotary Club last week. On the front row was a colonel in full uniform, the chief of the
army officers school. He jumped in his seat, as I carried on. Last night I had 17
minutes in the prime Danish radio program (similar to BBC 1). After that they dedicated
40 minutes to debunking me, without using one substantial argument!
You mention " a witness who is the son of an admiral and whose brother is the assistant
to an admiral and who maintains that he saw the Boeing approach and hit the Pentagon as
he watched from a fourteenth-story apartment south of the crash -- has written that he
had been watching news of the WTC attacks -- when they were showing over and over the
video of the plane hitting the South Tower -- when he saw an F-16 and a C-130 fly by
the Pentagon -- "which got my attention, he says -- and five minutes afterwards he saw
the Boeing approaching and crash." Do you dismiss this witness? I saw another place a
claim of 16 Boeing witnesses, which was reduced to one, and the last one then labeled
untrustworthy.
Yours, Ole Gerstrom
Former member of Parliament
Copenhagen, Denmark
From: Dick Eastman
Regarding "Jeff" who saw an F-16 and a C-130 fly "by the Pentagon" "five minutes"
before seeing the jetliner approach the Pentagon and, also says, saw it crash into the
building -- His story is credible, because what he reports goes against the
government's version to which he is loyal. I believe he did see the Boeing approach
the Pentagon, followed by an explosion; and that he interpreted this sequence of
events sufficient indication that the Boeing actually crashed, that it caused the
explosion he saw -- when in fact he did not see the Boeing crash, he merely saw it
approach the Pentagon and flew over it as the real killer jet crashed and/or missiles
exploded and/or planted explosives (with an initial bright flash) were detonated. I
think he was conditioned to see an airliner crash by repeatedly see the jetliner crash
into South Tower on this television -- so that when the Boeing flew in close to the
Pentagon and the explosion occurred the contiguity of the two events (plane reaching
Pentagon and the explosion) were interpreted as a crash, when in fact the plane did not
crash but flew over the building and landed at Reagan National Airport one mile beyond
(southeast) of the crash of the second plane and/or missile. His mind, after being
primed by the WTC, could reach no other conclusion then that the Boeing hit the
Pentagon -- his expectations, his mind's need to put a reasonable and comprehensible
interpretation on what he saw, forced him to the erroneous conclusion that he saw the
jetliner hit. He was not mentally prepared to see anything else, at that point.
Remember, the Boeing was over the Pentagon and closer to the airport than to the crash
point in just three seconds from the point the Boeing passed over the crash point. But
Jeff's attention was on the explosion and his (mistaken, psychologically imposed)
certainty that he saw it hit.
In an experiment conducted by social psychologists and experimenter ran into a crowded
room holding a banana, "took aim" with the banana and loudly shouted "bang bang" -- then
surveys were taken of the witnesses -- some actually reported that they heard and saw a
real gun go off. We are all vulnerable to suggestion -- to being tricked into seeing
what we are led to expect to see.
-----------
From: Ole Gerstrøm
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 1:38 AM
Subject: Re: [frameup] Re: Question to Dick Eastman (Pentagon9-11) --
Thanks Dick, I share your stand on this.
Ole
--------------------------------------------
From: Dick Eastman
Dear Ole,
I want to word this carefully.
It is established that there were explosions at the Pentagon minutes prior to the
explosion resulting from the flying object (plane and or missile(s) ). Remember that
Dov Zakheim had announced that the Pentagon was missing USD $2.4 trillion just the day
before the attack (on Sept 10, 2001) and that the explosions, followed by the crash
and/or missile strike occured in the newly refurbished wing of the Pentagon where only
the Office of Naval Intelligence (always independent of the CIA) and - are you ready
for this? -- and the Pentagon auditing department had bee moved in. I am convinced
(following the work of Barbara Honegger) that the perpetrators wanted the auditors and
independent investigating bod (not under conspirator control) killed -- that they
could not be sure that all of the targeted individuals would be present at the moment
the "jet crash" was scheduled to take place -- so bombs were set off just prior to the
crash at a moment when it had been confirmed by the conspirators that all of the
targeted personnel were in the building. The crash then came and covered up the fact of
the bombing of auditors. Honegger presents witnesses who walked over dead bodies in the
innermost wing of the southwest wedge -- rings A and B -- whereas the "crashing
plane" is alleged only to have penetrated as far as the corridor between rings C and B
-- recall the famous round "exit hole" in the innermost wall of ring-C.
Furthermore -- it is alleged that the nose of the crashing plane hit at column 14 on
the west wall -- the structure between windows is designated as columns -- column 14
being slightly south of the heliport, the numbers of columns increasing as you move
south. Column 14 is the only location where there is significant damage on the second
floor to even allow the possibility of a 757 fuselage hitting the building. But if the
nose hit at column 14 then two significant problems arise. First, given the distance
of the engines from the fuselage and the angle of hit, if the nose of the killer jet
hit at column 14 and if the killer jet had been a Boeing 757 then the 16th column on
the first floor would have had to have been pushed in by the starboard engine. Yet
we see that although much of the facia concrete have been blasted away by the
explosion the steel rods which reinforced the wall are still there. From this I
conclude that the plane or missile that hit at column 14 did not have wing engines.
I have, as you must recall from our intermittent correspondence over the years, long
suspected that the killer jet was a remote controlled F-16. One witness -- a witness
who is the son of an admiral and whose brother is the assistant to an admiral and who
maintains that he saw the Boeing approach and hit the Pentagon as he watched from a
fourteenth-story apartment south of the crash -- has written that he had been watching
news of the WTC attacks -- when they were showing over and over the video of the plane
hitting the South Tower -- when he saw an F-16 and a C-130 fly by the Pentagon --
"which got my attention, he says -- and five minutes afterwards he saw the Boeing
approaching and crash. Thus one witness places an F-16 in the vicinity near the time of
the attack. The F-16 is a plan that had been experimentally rigged with equipment to
allow total combat by remote control. This experimental plane had been retired on
March of 2001 and sent to the General Dynamics Museum. I suspect that the remote
control guidance for this plane or the plane itself or a duplicate set of equipment
was used to attack the Pentagon. I suspect an F-16 was used so that in case there was
an accident and the F-16 crashed in a visible way, that it could be claimed that this
plane was following the jetliner
The F-16 is reasonable speculation -- the fact of a single-engine aircraft or missile
is deduction from evidence. We know from the security camera video pictures -- first
released on March 2002, and used in Federal court as evidence in the trial of an
individual accused of terrorism -- and then officially released by the Pentagon in May
of 2006 -- established that the plane the tail fin (vertical stabilizer) of which is
visible in the picture is less than half the length of a Boeing 757. The Boeing 757
if 155 ft. the F-16 is about 49 ft. And so that is the first problem with a Boeing
757 hitting at column 14. The second problem with a Boeing 757 nosing into column 14
is the fact that far south between columns 19 and 20 on the second floor there is a hole
created by something that penetrated the building. The wingtip of the Boeing could not
have made this hole. This is clearly damage caused by a missile fired at a specific
target on the second floor of the building. And finally -- there is the effort to
conceal this visual evidence of the wrong damage imprint on the west wall -- namely
we have a fire truck shooting a curtain of water across the damage preventing cameras
from recording the damage (fortunately several good pictures were taken before the
water curtain was put there) -- and this fire truck continued this water screen
until 10:15 at which time it drove away and everyone was pulled back because, they
were all told "a second plane was on its ay" -- think how absurd and impossible that
is!!!! -- and in the same minute that the fire truck was withdrawn the Pentagon wall
collapsed, destroying the visible evidence of the damage imprint. And now for the
clincher -- it has been firmly established that that the Boeing 757 that people saw
approaching the Pentagon -- flying over the Naval Annex and north of people standing
at the Barracks K gas station (Citgo) between the Annex and the Pentagon -- which
means that it would have been impossible for that jetliner (in American Airlines
livery, whether it was actually "Flight 77" or not is of course not able to be
determined) as I was saying the fact that the jetliner passed north of the gas
station means that that plane could not have been the flying object that knocked down
the lamppost on the southwest corner of the stone bridge on Washington Blvd. (Route
17) which runs next to and parallel to the west wall of the Pentagon -- the
jetliner passed Washington Blvd too far north to have been the killer jet. I was the
first investigator to suggest that the Boeing 757 flew over the Pentagon as the killer
jet (or missile) struck the building. Indeed many witnesses reported seeing a second
plane. One saw two planes approaching "at slightly different angles" one of them
"veering off at the last minute." There is much more to say -- but perhaps this is
enough to answer your question: No I do not believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. I am
certain that missiles were used and bombs -- and MAYBE an F-16.
If you want links to pictures and witness and Barbara Honegger’s statements I will
provide them.
In friendship,
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
*** exposing the hidden truth for further educational research only ***
to receive email at another address, please reply with subject line “CHANGE”
to receive multiple daily news updates, please reply with subject line "DAILY MULTIPLE"
to receive single daily news updates, please reply with subject line "DAILY SINGLE"
to receive weekly updates only, please reply with "WEEKLY"
to be removed from the list, please reply with the subject line "REMOVE"
NOTE: Some links may require cut and paste into your Internet Browser.
<http://blogs.albawaba.com/alexanderjames/>
<http://blogs.albawaba.com/alexanderjames/> Please check
<http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/topics?gvc=2>
http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/topics?gvc=2 more real news posts
and support the truth!
http://blogs.albawaba.com/alexanderjames <http://blogs.albawaba.com/alexanderjames/> /
<http://www.lulu.com/content/165077> http://www.lulu.com/content/165077;
<http://bb.domaindlx.com/alexjames999> http://bb.domaindlx.com/alexjames999
<http://blogs.albawaba.com/Alexanderjames/page/links>
http://blogs.albawaba.com/Alexanderjames/page/links
*** Revealing the hidden Truth For Educational & Further Research Purposes only. ***
Welcome to Real News Edited excerpts, non-partisan, pro-truth-honesty-peace, and
anti-war-lies-crime. The purpose is to expose corruptions, frauds, deceptions, lies,
criminal plans, cover-ups and free-speech silencing by powerful people in governments,
foundations, corporations and media, which are done using the name of democracy, human
rights, false interpretations of religions, cults, occults, patriotism, economy,
business, media, elections, justice, charity, etc., and are used to trick the public
into hatred & wars and out of their lives, money and freedoms, while the propaganda we
are subjected to makes us believe that we have evolved to where such things cannot
happen [remember slavery, apartheid…]. Please share what you learn with others who do
not have access to the internet. This is only a tip of the iceberg. Stop the hatred that
is used to promote the dehumanization of the victims of aggressions;spread the
truth;free your mind from being a Zioncon occupied territory of the neo-feudal lords by
rejecting the mainstream news propaganda. Caution: real news may induce a kind of
schizophrenia because it provides a true vision of reality which is so different from
the one we are presented by the mass media spins. Latest real infonews available at
alternate news. ***** Check whatreallyhappened . com & other alternative news sites for
latest news flashes. In Truth We Trust! The opinions expressed herein contain positions
and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of the recipient, disseminator or others
mentioned in the information. These are offered as a means to stimulate dialogue and
discussion.
|
