Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

"Small Jet": "Smoking Gun" or "Urban Legend?" The Sterling Alan - Dick Eastman Debate (Who makes sense?)

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Dick Eastman

unread,

Mar 24, 2002, 12:41:31 AM3/24/02

STERLING ALAN BRUSHES OFF PENTAGON VIDEO &
FRENCH SITE AS FLIMSY HOAXTER URBAN LEGEND
BUT LOOK WHOSE TALKING
-----------------------------------------------------

R O U N D O N E:

STERLING ALAN:

here's why the wingspan against the building was smaller

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

"A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an
American
Airways 757. "'It added power on its way in,' he said. 'The nose hit,
and
the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

DICK EASTMAN:

Dear Sterling,

If the pilots name has been lost in the retelling -- how can you trust
what has been relayed. (THis is disinformation. Produce the pilot
here on this newsgroup (apfn-subscribe@yahoogroups) and let him
answer some questions I ask -- and I will retire from all posting
for keeps.

But its doesn't matter. We can see the small jet firing the missile.
One observer -- who contradicts other observers and the size of the
hole the missile and the jet made, and the width of the lamp posts
that
the small jet passed between etc.

The evidence leaves no room for the disinformation boys to slip in
this fiction.

Can you help me trace this back to its source, Sterling. Send it to
the deception victim who sent it to you and ask him to send it
to the place where he got it from.

http://www.bosankoe.btinternet.co.uk/pentagon.gif

[This is the Bosankoe evidence, it shuts up every would-be
debunker who sees it. -- from Pentagon supplied video.]

If your boy is not a disinformation fiction -- then he is mistaken,
pilot
or
no pilot.

Don't feel bad, Sterling -- we all were fooled for a while.

In friendship,

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.

----------------------
R O U N D T WO:

STERLING ALAN:

This will create a diminished area of wing impact.

The plane does not retain its shape when smashing into a hard object.

Sterling

DICK EASTMAN:
(no response)
------------

R O U N D T H R E E:

STERLING ALAN:

From: Sterling D. Allan, Facilitator
To: American Patriot Friend Network egroup ; God Bless America egroup
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 1:56 PM
Subject: [APFN] more debunking of flight 77 conspiracy

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm

Hunt the Boeing!

From the mailbag...

Dear Guide:

Got this URL forwarded to me from a friend. It's a series of pictures
that
"shows" that a truck full of explosives, rather than a plane, caused
damage
to the Pentagon on Sept. 11. I'm sending it on to you for examination:

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

DICK EASTMAN:

Sterling,

Do you mean you haven't heard that the D.o D. supplied security video
shows
a small jet?

Are you not aware that "Urban legends" is a disinformation outfit --
that
they do not look at the real evidence (the Pentagon security video) --
but
they cause confusion by disseminating phony far-fetched "scenarios"
-- to
discredit the real discovery!!!!!

Sterling, I want you to answer this letter of mine -- to assure me
that
you are not part of this disinformation effort, that you are just a
gullible
dupe.

Again everyone can see -- and they are looking all over the world --
at the
Dave Bosankoe evidence.

I myself was arguing that there were planted charges on the inside
that were
blown when the intended crash plane went down in Ohio -- then I saw
the
Bosankoe evidence (I can supply the documentation of how Bosankoe --
who at
first favored the official verson -- made the enlargement that settled
the
point for all time (and you can replicate his results with the same
or
other enlargement software.)

The time has come to stop helping the 911 perpetraters, "Sterling
Alan,
Facilitator." Join the free and the brave. Facilitate justice.
Facilitate
peace. Facilitate the truth.

I expect a response.

In friendship,

Dick Eastman
Yakima

R O U N D F O U R:

STERLING ALAN:

Dick,

Just think about it.

A plane, any plane, crashes into an obstruction at high speed. The
body is
slowed down, the kinetic energy of the wings keeps them moving
forward, but
they are attached at the body, so they fold forward.

This will create a diminished area of wing impact.

The plane does not retain its shape when smashing into a hard object.

Sterling

DICK EASTMAN:

> Dick,
>
> Just think about it.

Sterling, this is not place for armchair physics. What would happen
is an
experimental question, and the experiment has not been performed.

> A plane, any plane, crashes into an obstruction at high speed.
> The body is slowed down, the kinetic energy of the wings keeps
> them moving forward, but they are attached at the body, so they
> fold forward.

This theory completely dismisses, without a word, the probability that
the
wings would
be sheared off.

The wings are moving toward the wall with terrific momentum. They
would not
pull through the hole like a washcloth through a knapkin ring. These
materials lack that
elasticity. THe theory is contrived and absurd.

You are right that to the extent that the fusilage is slowed by the
noses
collision with the wall, that the wings would not accordian with the
plane
(and remember the accordianing fusilage would itself be so dense and
pushed
out at the sides that it would squeeze away the wings!!!!!) so the
wing
would first pulled froward from the fusilage, then, as the wing hit
the
wall, it would be pushed (bounce back) sheared and broken up.

But all of this is besides the point, Sterling. Again you ignore the
fact:
WE HAVE THE VIDEO OF THE SMALL JET, FIRING THE MISSILE, AND THEN
CRASHING
INTO THE BUILDING, PRESUMABLE THROUGH THE HOLE THAT THE MISSILE OPENED
FOR
IT.

Now sterling, go to
http://www.bosankoe.btinternet.co.uk/pentagon.gif

and tell me if you see a big jet or a small jet. And tell me what you
think
that white smoke plume under the jets wing (in the first frame) is.

Otherwise, I can't see how we are going to come to any agreement here.

Warm regard,

Dick

R O U N D F I V E:

STERLING ALAN:

Also, why place the burden of proof on me. You are the one who is
making
the claim. You should do the work. Contact the Guardian, ask for
evidence
of this information. Don't expect me to do your work. I'm not the
one
making the fantastic claim.

p.s. I don't see why you say the pilot's name has been lost. It is
given in
the first sentence of this three sentence statement. Tim Timmerman.

["A pilot who saw the impact, Tim Timmerman, said it had been an
American
Airways 757. "'It added power on its way in,' he said. 'The nose hit,
and
the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001 ]

D I C K E A S T M AN:

Very good. Now if Tim Timmerman will answer questions here and tell
me that
he is sure it was a 757 and answer some questions about his sighting
(whether or not to my satisfaction) I will resign the 911 cause as I
have
promised.

You ask why I place the burden of proof on you. I do not. I merely
ask you
how you interpret the Defense Dept. video shown at
http://www.bosankoe.btinternet.co.uk/pentagon.gif

You are right, I am making the fantastic claim. But how can you
dismiss the
fantastic claim without looking at what I offer as EVIDENCE THAT IS
EVEN
MORE FANTASTICALLY CONCLUSIVE?

If you won't look the evicdence of those you ridicule, won't address
it ,
won't even acknowledge it -- how do you expect people to take you
pooh-poohing of the
evidence you refuse to discuss?

You say the burden of proof is on me. OK. Here it is
http://www.bosankoe.btinternet.co.uk/pentagon.gif

Now the burdern of evaluation is on you. You must look at it and tell
us
why you accept or reject it. Otherwise, I would be forced to conclude
that
you are being obstinate and disingenuous -- and I would have to ask
why it
is that Sterling Alan is being obstinate and disingenuous. That is
unless
you have a good reason for avoiding coming to grips with the evidence
that I
offer as easily carrying this burden of proof you talk about.

Finally, Alan, -- can you come to grips with this: You claim that
when the
plane hit the wall the wings remained connected to the fusilage and
were
just pulled into the hole punched by the fusilage, like an umbrella
closing,
like a pulled-apart bobby pin being pulled head-first through the lace
"eye"
of a shoe BUT THE ALLEGED WITNESS SAYS ONLY THIS:

"'It added power on its way in,' he said. 'The nose hit, and the wings
came
forward and it went up in a fireball.'"

He did not see the pulling in of the wings that you claim happened.

Finally, if Timmons exists, I would like to know if he was listening
to the
radio, and whether he heard that a Boeing 757 was hijacked or
unaccounted
for etc. -- a fact that may well have conditioned what he thought he
saw --
a pilot would visualize the plane if he heard that a Boeing 757 was up
there
and possibly hijacked etc.

And we see from the Pentagon video (again at
http://www.bosankoe.btinternet.co.uk/pentagon.gif
if you still haven't seen it yet) that the plane came it
low "at treetop level" as witnesses say -- which means
that it was upon all observers very suddenly, with little
time to "take in" what was being seen (that is why the
small jet approached low like that).

At any rate, you see that I have lifted the 'burden of proof"
for you to inspect -- for you to accept or reject --

stop adding stories that no one believes about " truck bombs'

you know that that is not a real claim -- and you know that it
ios very dishonest of you to act here on apfn as if the "small jet"
evidence does not exist and as if the "truck bomb" scenario
is something that anyone has seriously put forward or believes.
Obviously it is "smoke" to confuse --- its like running
several bogus populist candidates in a campaign (Perot,
Alan Keyes etc.) in order to drain attention away from the
real one (Pat Buchanan)

Now if you don't give your analysis of
http://www.bosankoe.btinternet.co.uk/pentagon.gif

then I will have to say you are out to discredit this
evidence rather than to evaluate it; that you seek
to discredit it for reasons other than that you know
it to be insupportable.
---------------------------------

R O U N D S I X

STERLING ALAN (>)
& EASTMAN

Sterling writes:

> I've seen the images many times. You must remember that this plane is
> flying at 350+ mph, and the security camera is taking shots at every .1
> second, so the image is going to be blurred and not accurate.

Look at the two pieces of large flying debris that fly up and out from
the
explosion -- not that they are not blurred -- not that they are
caught
in each of the frames accurately without distortion (they are not a
blur).

Not also the tail of the jet is clearly unblurred above the square
pillar in
the first frame.
You can even see a hump of cockpit as well. And there is no mistaking
the
size -- this is something defineily no bigger than an F-16 --and
shaped like
one as well.

The 350+ mph may or may not be accurate (some are saying 250 mph) --
but
the fact is that the lines of the object are clear -- vertical
stabilizer,
cockpit hump etc. There is speed yes, but in this case a clear
picture (we
are not talking 16 mm. movie film) the camera is high resolution --
the
video camera equivalent of "shudder speed" was fast enough --
so don't pull a blurr from your armchair hat when there is no blur.
>
> Speaking of 'armchair physics,' I am not convinced in the least from this
> image that there is any kind of missile being fired in advance of the
plane,
> though there is something that vaguely resembles it. It is not conclusive
> in the least.

First it was a "fantastic claim", but now it issomething that does
"resemble" a missle being fired, but you are not "convinced." That
sounds
like a still-open question to me, Sterling.
It is not "conclusive" is a hack of a lot different than the earlier
statement that it is a "fantastic claim." You don't have a
consistent
position on this do you. It seems to me that you just oppose the
small
plane evidence at what ever level you think the context and the
audience
will bare at the moment, don't you? You can't get away with saying
"fantastic claim" when talking about the particulars of this evidence,
so
you morph your argument into the more reasonalbe "not conclusive" --
very
disingenuous of you, to my way of thinking, Sterling.
>
> How do you account for the body count that is accounted for?
> http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/armymed/news/releases/afip.htm

Since it is a small plane then Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld and Asst. Sec.
of
Defense Wolfowitz are complicit in the deception (and the mass-murder)
and
are in control of the Defense Department to the extent that they can
promote
systematic deceit of the American people with (so-far) impunity --
thus the
armymedicine.armyu.mil news release would have to be part of the
deception.

Ever hear of chain of command? Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz are the top
of the
Chain -- with all Mossad and CIA infiltrators pre-positioned at
strategic spots.

Recently I man supposedly running a creamatorium was found keeping the
bodies that should have been burned in a nearby lot on his property
-- what
kind of market was he supplying? Who wanted to buy a lot of corpses?
Who
many other such suppliers where there around the country who were not
detected?
The people who would plan 911 have shown they go beyond what ordinary
people
like you and I normally conceive.

Like ballots -- who knows where the body bags came from that were
counted?

If there are not two engines that survived, how come there are
identifyable remains?

How come we were told that body parts and aircraft parts were
vaporized earlier?

At any rate, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld have to be in on it, and being in
on they would necessarily have taken care of a detail like the
autopsies (creamation elsewhere -- adumbration with the needed metal
fragments etc.) to make the case. If you believe in any conspiracy
at all you must know that this is possible. The forensics probably do
not realize that these bodies (the falsely alleged bodies of crew and
passengers) did not come from the Pentagon jet attack site.

Biggest question -- where are these remains now? Can families make
their own independent determinations?

-- it would be absurd to expect the insider-crime, done on this
scale and with this much planning, would not have the body count
covered. (remeber also the claims earlier that
all of the bodies were vaborized etc. where did this new news release
come from? ) Short answer: The deception would have to include
pre-planned measures to
misrepresent the true body count at the attack site.
>
> How do you account for the eyewitnesses?
> http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

The eye witnesses seem to disagree. Many say it was a small plane,
including the one how supplied the photos from the street in front of
the Pentagon that are shown at Bosankoe's webpage and that I have
supplied. A small plane of a size no bigger than 12 -pasenger
capacity -- coming in at treetop level.

But the hole is too small. Your explanation of wings being pulled
in through the hole punched by the fuselage is absurd (for reasons
given last time).

So tell me -- why did you post the "urban legends" site debunking
the "no plane" thesis of the French site by attacking the
out-of-the-blue
idea that a "truck bomb" was responsible -- when you know that
the small jet is the explanation that the whole world is settling
upon?

>
> Sterling

Dick

R O U N D S E V E N:

STERLING WRITES:

STERLING:
As for your insinuation that I am a purposeful purveyor of
disinformation,
see my index on 911:
http://patriotsaints.com/News/911/Conspiracy/

Sterling

EASTMAN:

[going to bed]

http://www.public-action.com Carol A. Valentine

HACKED http://www.copvcia.com Michael C. Ruppert
use copvcia mirror: www.bighula.com/copvcia/

http://www.skolnicksreport.com Sherman H. Skolnick
http://www.apfn.org
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/
http://www.rense.com Jeff Rense
http://www.bosankoe.btinternet.co.uk Dave Bosankoe
www.narconews.com
http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/tradecencrimes/
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/
www.truthout.com
http://www.humanunderground.com

Dick Eastman

unread,

Mar 26, 2002, 3:17:13 AM3/26/02

You know a thread contains important information when hecklers are
sent to it to fill it with profanity and digressions and other stink
intended to drive away others. (And don't mind references to the
feelings of the grieving. If investigations into murders had to stop
because of the feelings of the relatives then no frame-up would ever
be discovered. The families of the victims want the truth -- and if
they don't , they know better than to look into a thread like this.
No family member of a victim has requested that I stop yet -- and I
post to many NY lists and newsgroups.

Now to the matter at hand.
----------------------------

This post ties together motive and means in the 911 frame-up.

The expanded American Patriot Friends Network apfn site
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wtc.htm joins Michael C. Ruppert's (now
HACKED) http://www.copvcia.com (use mirror:
www.bighula.com/copvcia/ ), and Carol Valentine's
http://www.public-action.com as 911 leading 911 investigation sites.

I was asked to look at apfn's 9-11 site and see if any important
issue had been overlooked. While attempting fulfill this assignment
I saw at once how sidetracked from the important questions and clues
we got when United States invaded Afganistan and anthrax was
discovered in media and government offices. We let these
(intentional?) distractions get us off the scent we had been
followingly hotly.

Here are the most importaant questions, motives, aspects etc. we need
to return to:

1. Nothing is more important to breaking the 911-frame-up than the
Bosankoe enlargment and animation-sequencing of the Pentagon attack.
This evidence establishes the fact of the small jet (or cruise
missile) attack on the Pentagon on September 11, using the raw data
of the D. of D.'s own security video footage. This is the
unanswerable "smoking gun." It is sound replicable data actually
provided by the organization that it proves is lying.

2. The fact of remote-control hijackings in each of the 911
crashbombing planes is further supported by these other
well-documented cases of crashjacking murders (and one test run of the
remote crashjacking equipment): [We talk about the remote-control
hijackings, but we neglect to tell newcomers to the investigation that
there have been other incontrovertable cases of remote-control
crashjackings that were discovered, but then forgotten in distraction
by the U.S. -Northern-Alliance-Druglord invasion and conquest of
Taliban Afganistan and by the small anthrax attacks on the media and
government and daily predicted but never materializing large-scale
anthrax attack. Here are the tree other cases:

a. American Airlines Airbus A300 in 1999: As it prepared
to land in Miami the rudder moved back and forth
several times on its own causing the jet to move violently
from side to side. Then it just stopped on its own.
"Rudder movements extreme" reported the NTSB.
Never explained. I suspect it was a test of remote-
control crashjacking equipment.

b. Crashed Egypt Air 990 Boeing 767 10/31/99 JFK to
Cairo, Egypt. Top Egyptian military aboard. A half hour
out of New York the pilot left the cockpit to go to the
toilet. A voice, in English, (not the pilot or co-pilot) is
heard on the voice recorder saying "Control it." --then
the plane begins flying countrary to the auto-pilot
where it had been set to fly the appropriate course..
The co-pilot uttering prays to Allah in disbelief, turns off
the auto-pilot in an attempt to restore proper control of
the plane. But instead, the plane then goes into a dive.
The co-pilot is again heard calling on Allah for help.
The pilot returns to the cockpit 16 seconds into
the dive, asking, "What's happening?" Both work to
pull up the nose. The engine goes full throttle while
still in a dive. The co-pilot cuts the fuel lines, to stop
the engines. Then the right and left elevators move in
opposite directions. The ailerons on both wings move
full up. The pilot orders "Shut engines." The co-pilot
replies: "They're shut." The last words from the
cockpit are of those of the pilot exhorting the co-pilot
in Arabic: "Pull! Pull! Pull!" Suddenly the voice recorder
is simply shut off, just like in Flight 587. (Presumably
the remote-controlling crash-jacker has heard enough
to know that his mission crashjacking mission has succeeded.

c. Flight 587 on 11/12/01, an Airbus A 300 after taking
off in New York suddenly has its vertical stabilizers begin
to sway back and forth on their won, beyond the normal
range that even the cockpit controls permit.
Flight data record "unuslual sideways movments, [called
yawing], that violently slammed passengers back and forth"
-- working the rudder in the stabilizer as if someone were
trying to wear down the material as one breaks wire through
metal fatigue by working it back and forth. When
the stabilizer finally broke off under this pounding rudder
was gone the plane might still have been able to land with
a skilled pilot under otherwise normal conditions,
except that now the remote crashjacker began playing
with the flaps, the ailerons and the elevators all at the
same time. The strain on the plane was terrific. As the
recorder indicates, the plane turned a full ten degrees in one
second. (A feat well beyond the normal range of operation.)
The plane banked left, even though the blackbox recorder
indicates that at the same time pilot and co-pilot were
working controls to move the plane in the opposite direction.
Then the remote crashjacker goes for his kill with the recorder
indicating that the nose drops into a dive and the cockpit voice
recorder is shut off (and that means both the plane's normal
power source and the emergeny battery source on a different
circuit.). The stresses caused by these crashjacking maneuvers
-- the full throttle dive followed by the suden dropping
of the flaps -- causes the in-high-momentum engines to
break away from the wing attachments and the winds that are pulling up
on the falling engines as the flaps slow the wings.
Note: The cockpit conversations of these crashes have not
been released, instead, merely portions of alleged cockpit conversation
were paraphrased.
Note that the NTSB. Director Marion Blakey , recently appointed,
was originally a high-paid D.C. lobbyist with no experience in crash
investigations or aviation) -- she blames both the Flight AA-587
crash and the EgyptAi r990 crashes on the pilots (pilot error in the
AA-587 case and a "crazy-Moslem" suicide in the EgyptAir case
-- both totally inconsistent with any and all available evidence --
both impossible to stand up without the establishmentarian veil of
paternalistic secrecy. Both determinations by the NTSB,
in the face of all contrary blackbox flight data being entirely too
improbable to leave room for any other conclusion than that the
National Transportation Safety Board is involved in the 911 frame-up
cover-up.

3. The destruciton of the North Tower and WTC Building #7 meant the
destruction of all the evidence and files in two of the biggest and
far-reaching suits ever brought against the very top financial
leaders of the U.S.

a) The grand jury information about the illegal oil swaps between
Kazakhstan and then-sanctioned Iran, in a suit brought by
businessman Farhat Tabbah under the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act, that involved James H.Giffen and
Mobil Oil -- evidence and files destroyed in the bomb
explosion on the 23rd floor of the North Tower and the later
collapse of the building and the deaths of investigators
effectively ended the chances of those cases succeeding.
(See #5, below, about the bomb on the 23rd floor; See
Seymor M. Hersh's article in the July 9, New Yorker for
details in the action brought against Giffen and Giffen's close
criminal ties with Kazakhstan strongman Nazarbayev.

b). The destruction of Securities and Exchange Commission
evidence and files and investigators murdered in the largest
gold-price-fixing case in history, the Gold Anti-Trust Action
Committee's (GATA's) lawsuit, brought by Reginal Howe,
involving some of the most powerful figures in American
finance-- charges against Greenspan, Morgan, and other big
banking houses, plus Lawrence Sommers (now President
of Harvard) -- the entire case destroyed in the wtc attack.
(Many government agencies had been relocated in the wtc
buildings. Building number seven, by the way, was the
New York CIA headquaters -- just as the Pentagon
target was Naval intelligence.)

4. The bomb that went off on the 23rd floor of the North Tower
near the moment of the first plane hitting the building was revealed
indirectly on the 60 Minutes program a week or so later-- John Tebeak
(Sp.?) the new wtc security chief being interviewed tells of his
rescue of Port Authority workers on the 22nd floor totally buried in
debris when the bomb-demolished 23rd-floor roof collapsed on them --
30 stories below the airliner crash! (I have this on tape, and have
made the transcript, and can put you in touch with Steve in Maine who
has the actual video. ) [Is there a connection between the 23rd-floor
destruction and a phantom missile that people are claiming to see
hitting the building along with the first plane that crashed. People
were dead, rescuers had to dig through rubble to rescue the Port
Authority personel on the floor below those 23rd-floor government
offices (disguised as health insurance offices) where information in
the above two cases were being stored.

5. The important role of Northern Alliance grown opium in the
production of Chinese heroin, and the revenues those crops generate
that are laundered into American and British investment banks to be
reinvested in the new (slave) facorties of Triad-dominated China and
that -- with near subsistence wages drain middle classes jobs from the
the working people of the west. (The opium-derived heroin grosses $2
trillion a year in subsequently-laundered revenues -- a flow of funds
that comprises a large portion of the "hot money" that has caused
economic havoc throught the national economies of the world.

6. And finally we have the $6 trillion in Central Asian oil and
mineral wealth -- and the possibility of oil pipelines through
Afganistan to carry that oil to India, Vietnam and other southeast
Asian nations whose economic development finance globalism means to
control.

So lets discuss these six questions.

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington

Now to the matter at hand.
----------------------------

This post ties together motive and means in the 911 frame-up.

Here are the most importaant questions, motives, aspects etc. we need
to return to:

So lets discuss these six questions.

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington

0 new messages