Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">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
--- Begin Message --- http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/npp-east.html
>> The number of witnesses accounts and the various objective facts (plane's remains, impacts, ...) should have pushed him out of these hypotheses. But he cannot admit to say "I made a mistake of thinking" or "I was pushed to error by some oddities" and wants to defend his first hypothese against all and everybodyÂ: all those who tried to explain him that he was wrong because a theory cannot violate facts are put on the status of "disinformation agents party to the conspiracy"Â:)
I took some time to examine this theory, made some plots like a grid to place some witnesses in the scene and demonstrate that their account couldn't be exact. I also made a diagram to show him that the assumed manoeuvre of the "Boeing which landed in National Airport" implied a turn with a too high load factor and was impossible. But how could an engineer and a pilot dialog with somebody who has absolutely no technological background, doesn't know the basics of flying, is most of the time out of logical reasonning, ignores the meaning of the words "prove" or "refute"Â? I finally gave up.<<
Dick Eastman's theory
Â
Â
Dick Eastman is an activist, who holds a degree in economy and works as a clerck in a video store. He is sometimes depicted as sympathic, and sometimes as a real crap, mainly in this later case by those who had some relationship with him and dared to emit any critic about his ideas. He is indeed, this is the least that can be said about him, somehow a "mad dog" in his relationship. His fight against the "neo cons' new world order" can't be ignored by anyone who browsed a little on the newsgroups or receives list diffused mails on political or economical subjects such as gulf war II, economics problems in the United states, the "patriot act", framing-up or covering-up various events by the Bush administration. The oddities in the 911 events appeared to him, as to some others including me.
He was probably one of the first to react to the "Hunt the Boeing" web site. As I did first, he focused on the thesis of a missile or remotely controled fighter plane for the attack on the Pentagon. His theory tries to conciliate the witness accounts of an airliner flying towards the Pentagon on 911 and the idea of a military type attack on the following wayÂ:
â The crew (at least pilots) of flight 77 would have been party in the conspiracy
â The Boeing 757 would have flyed towards the Pentagon. Just under it, as to make it invisible by radars, or on a raze to the ground discrete trajectory somehow different, a "killer jet", such as a F16 fighter, would have hidden itself.
â When arriving onto the Pentagon, the F16 would have fired a missileÂ: it's this missile's smoke plume and tail which is visible on the cctv images.
â The missile would have hit the front of the Pentagon.
â The remotely piloted F16 would have hit the building, on the same point than the missile, entering the first floor through the hole made by the missile. It's engine would have crossed the whole building, making the "punch out" hole.
â The boeing would have flyed just over the the front of the Pentagon, the bright fireball (white then orange) which developped there allowing it to escape from witnesses' view.
â The Boeing would have done a manoeuvre to land in National Airport, located just on the other side of the Pentagon.
â The passengers would have been taken discretely to another place. Either they have been slaughtered, or they are party in the operation and are now enjoying a millionnaire life on some paradisiac island under the tropics.
The number of witnesses accounts and the various objective facts (plane's remains, impacts, ...) should have pushed him out of these hypotheses. But he cannot admit to say "I made a mistake of thinking" or "I was pushed to error by some oddities" and wants to defend his first hypothese against all and everybodyÂ: all those who tried to explain him that he was wrong because a theory cannot violate facts are put on the status of "disinformation agents party to the conspiracy"Â:)
I took some time to examine this theory, made some plots like a grid to place some witnesses in the scene and demonstrate that their account couldn't be exact. I also made a diagram to show him that the assumed manoeuvre of the "Boeing which landed in National Airport" implied a turn with a too high load factor and was impossible. But how could an engineer and a pilot dialog with somebody who has absolutely no technological background, doesn't know the basics of flying, is most of the time out of logical reasonning, ignores the meaning of the words "prove" or "refute"Â? I finally gave up.
This being said, when Dick Eastman stays in a domain where he has skills, his reflexions can be brilliant. Here is one of them about the possible cause of targeting the first floor of the west aisle of the Pentagon, which houses the operational center of US naval intelligenceÂ:
Since the Clinton years, intelligence, especially in reference to the CIA, has been divided into the so-called "Red Team" of internationalists (giving the store away to China etc.) and the "Blue" team (more nationalistic and loyal to the Constitution) -- like the difference between George C. Marshall (elitist and China sellout) and MacArthur (anti-Communist, not of the secret aristocracy that is the eastern establishment power elite like the Rockefellers, Harrimans, Bush Familty etc.)
Naval Intelligence had a degree of autonomy -- the idea was that if one intelligence center was compromised there would be a second intelligence center to detect the treason and give the warning.
Naval Intelligence was not on the same teams of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, the political leadership believe in ends-justify-the-means Machiavellian crimes that the cloak of secrecy allows them to get away with, whereas the organizational leadership of Naval Intelligence would not go along with killing over 2000 of our own people in order to light a fire of war fever under the American public.
If not destroyed, Naval Intelligence would have detected the truth and acted in the appropriate way -- the way you and I are reacting just in the capacity of alert ordinary citizens -- but they would have been listened to because of who they were.
Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz had not fired, killed, re-assigned all the many patriotic Defense workers who would have given them trouble by the time they were ready for the 9-11 frameup -- they found it easier to order them all to attend a secret meeting at the specified room where they were all caught and killed by the combination of missile and jet fighter that tunneled through the first floor and got them A dive from above would not have worked as the concrete floors of the five story building would have limited dammage to people on the first floor -- the fireball going up from the upper floors and not down.
This meeting in a ring C meeting room, in the the west aisle of the Pentagon, with top brass and people of the NIS "to analyse the ongoing attack" is not something out of Dick Eastman's brainÂ: it's real. It's enough to have a look on this page or to that one to be convinced. Finding who organized this meeting and chose the meeting room could be of the highest importance for finding the truth on the Pentagon's attack.
Â
Â
Navigateur obsolÃte !!!
Please let us stay on topic and be civil.-Home Page- www.cia-drugs.org
OM
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Yahoo! Groups Links
- To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--- End Message ---
