:kick:
Greetings Democratic Underground Community.
Sufficient hard evidence or not? The questions Abe Linkman asks of Bolo are similar to those Leonard Spencer and I have recently debated.
So tell me, DU discussants, what is the truth?
-----------
Dick Eastman responds to Leonard Spencer's rebuttal of Spencer's failed job of undermining the small-plane evidence
A Discussion of Serendipity posting of Leonard Spencer's article "The Attack on the Pentagon"
http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm(I had accused Spencer of doing a hatchet job on the small-plane evidence and implications.)
Leonard Spencer:
I didn't set out to do a hatchet job on the small plane theory, only to collect together what I felt was the best evidence lying around and see where it led me. At some point however I was bound to get to the vexed issue of what it was that actually hit the Pentagon and, to my mind, the evidence simply didn't point to a small plane. I didn't consider it my job to present the small plane theory in the best or most coherent way; I'm happy to leave that to those whose reading of the evidence leads them to favour this interpretation.
Dick Eastman:
A crime has been committed with tens of thousands of lives and the freedoms of more than one nation at stake. If a small plane fired one or more missiles into the Pentagon ahead of its own crash penetration as the Boeing overflew the crash and landed at the airport one mile beyond -- then the implications change the entire world.
The investigators who have concluded the preceding from the evidence have painstakingly set out the proofs for people to examine and confirm so that public opinion can build for stopping the criminals who are still active and dangerous from doing more damage to the human race. The proofs are multiple and each is sufficient to discredit the Boeing thesis. Now, Leonard, when someone puts up a website representing itself as a theory or solution to the case and presents evidence in support of its view as you have done, and when in making this presentation you present your findings as definitive conclusions as you did, then you have, in so doing, conveyed to the reader that you have taken into account all of the arguments of the reigning explanation -- you represented the small-plane theory as being based on certain facts when it was not based on those facts and furthermore you omitted the proofs that did exist. You did have an obligation not to misrepresent the position you were attacking. You failed in that obligation. You also had an obligation to be rather complete when listing the reasons, i.e., the lines of proof based on evidence, supporting the view that you claimed to have refuted. This also you did not do.
Leonard Spencer:
I find his contention that 'the small-plane thesis takes the witnesses more seriously than the official story or any of the wannabe theories' puzzling.
Dick Eastman:
No puzzle. A witness heard a missile. A witness heard a sonic boom. A witness saw a radar blip behaving like a jet. Witnesses saw the Boeing on an approach to the Pentagon that was too far North to have hit the southwest-most lamppost that was downed, ie.e, seeing it come over the Sharaton, the Annex and the Citgo gas station. Sgt. Lagasse, pumping gas saw the Boeing pass overand to the north so that he could see the windows of the starboard side. Riskus claimed that the Boeing passed close to him (he said 100 feet) and that it appeared to go straight in. Every one of these statements is compatible with the small plane thesis and incompatible with the official version. There are other examples as well.
Leonard Spencer:
While accepting that the small plane thesis allows additionally for the
presence of a Boeing jet (and I certainly make no attempt to 'conceal' this)
Dick Eastman:
Omission is concealment, Leonard. And you clearly attempted to discredit the small-plane thesis by saying "witnesses saw a Boeing", did you not? You left the trusting reader with the impression that the view that you were refuting held that there was no Boeing present.
Leonard Spencer:
I just cannot find a single eyewitness report that supports this idea.
Dick Eastman:
What idea? The idea that the plane they saw was a Boeing? Or the idea that a small camoflaged jet fighter, flying low to the ground (20 feet of the ground) at nearly 700 mph, could be missed when all eyes are rivited on the big shiny Boeing 757 at 80 feet, out of the flight path, coming over buildings towards the Pentagon when everyone's mind is full of the two airliners that have struck the World Trade Center? Killer jet was on-stage for less than four seconds. Most of the grandstand seats were occupied by the dead of Arlington National Cemetery, the rest of the people were driving their cars. And 30 seconds after the crash and overfly a C-130 passed through the smoke over the crash. It is no surprise that no one saw the attacker. No witness would have been able to take it in. And we also have the witnesses who did see a flash close to the ground which they interpreted as the Boeing hitting the lawn and bouncing -- their minds not being able to take in what they actually saw.
Leonard Spencer:
The great majority of witnesses report seeing a large or medium sized passenger jet; just three report seeing a small plane.
Dick Eastman:
This is what one would expect given the way it happened. Hijacked crashbombing airliners are in their minds, and an airliner is what they see coming at the Pentagon. Remember, these are people suddenly taken out of their context and shown something very vast. The blurr of the killer jet would easily be ignored as a shadow -- if you see someone jumping off a building, while the person is dropping you are not going to notice even someone naked walk up and stand beside you. Undetection is the whole point of low-to-the-ground contour-hugging fighter-missile attacks.
Leonard Spencer:
Not a single eyewitness speaks of seeing both, though there is one hearsay account to that effect.
Dick Eastman:
Yes, and Gerard Holmgren has found that a great many witness accounts of the event, are, upon examination, the reporter putting into his/her own over-assuming words the context in which the remarks are made. Most direct quotes say "the plane", but many reporters go beyond their collected data and refer to the airliner. BUT this is not an argument I make -- just a comment to your remark. ALL THAT IS RELEVANT ABOUT THE WITNESSES SEEING THE BOING IS WHERE THEY LOCATE IT -- THE PATH OF APPROACH TO THE CRASH COORDINATES.
Leonard Spencer:
I find his remark that 'it is the witnesses who place the Boeing coming over the Sheraton Hotel, over the Naval Annex and over the CItgo gas station, that establishes that the Boeing they saw was not the plane that knocked down the southmost damaged lamppost on Washington Bvld', equally puzzling. According to my map the route thus described is entirely consistent with the damage to this lamp post.
Dick Eastman:
Then why, since you were putting up a website on the subject, didn't you ask someone who has analyzed the photos -- at least to find out what photo and map evidence were used to derive the conclusion.
I show photos from the gas station where Lagasse was pumping gas. We see straight ahead the smoke pouring from the Pentagon. We see to the right (south) the Washington Blvd. overpass where the famous black taxi was hit by the falling first pole. And that pole had been standing at the southwest corner of that overpass. Well to the right of the path of the Boeing (i.e., to the south of the path) as it went over the gas station on its way to overfly the wall that was hit. What's more is the fact that Sgt. Lagasse clearly states that as he was pumping gas and the Boeing went by him nearly overhead -- and the off-wing blew him into his car he told the network reporter -- he actually saw the starboard side of the plane above him -- seeing the windows of the right side -- which means that the plane was north of him -- and, as the photos of these locations clearly demonstrate -- the Boeing could not have hit that pole -- the pole had to have been brought down by something other than the Boeing. There is no reason to puzzle over that, once you have taken the responsiblity to check out the evidence supporting the thesis you are claiming to have refuted.
Leonard Spencer:
On the matter of those lamp posts, I'm probably not as aware of the history of this discussion as Eastman seems to think. Has the lamp post evidence been discredited?
Dick Eastman:
The lampposts were knocked down. Originally, Ron Harvey appeared on the discussion scene showing the lampposts, how this Englishman in London got the data on the lampposts ahead of every American is a mystery to me -- but also claiming that people saw the Boeing knocking down the lampposts. The lamppost data forced everyone to revise their notions of the angle at which the killer jet attacked. But Harvey was caught telling people that Riskus saw the lampposts being knocked down -- in fact I at one point conceded the point and admitted I must be wrong -- UNTIL IT OCCURED TO ME TO CHECK WITH RISKUS HIMSELF, RATHER THAN TAKE RON HARVERY'S WORD FOR IT. Riskus did not see the poles being hit by the Boeing or by anything else. And the Taxi driver, Michael England, also did not see a plane hitting the first pole, the pole which penetrated his windshield and which he carreid along a bit as he was headed south on Washington Blvd. (Only after bringing his car to a stop did he look out his window and see, to his left (east) the Boeing headed for the Pentagon -- and he did not see it crash, and he did state, to Mark Bilk, that from where he saw it and when he saw it, the Boeing could indeed have lifted to clear the roof of the building -- along a path where it might have hit the 4th and 5th poles that were knocked down.
Leonard Spencer:
I didn't know that. His argument about air turbulence bringing the posts down, rather than the wings of a larger plane, is interesting and I hadn't thought of it before. I'm sure he's right that the
posts are designed to minimise injuries to motorists who crash into them. On the other hand they're probably not so flimsy that they collapse in gale-force winds otherwise they'd be injuring pedestrians instead. A problem with the air turbulence idea is that one of the lamp posts en route remained standing, for some reason unaffected by the turbulence that Eastman believes brought down its neighbours. This is easier to explain if the posts were in fact brought down by a plane's wings and the plane rolled slightly at this point, so missing this particular post.
Dick Eastman:
The turbulence coming off the wing can actually be a tiny cyclone moving faster than the jet itself -- no pole is contructed to withstand that kind of speed if it should strike. But another thing about the cyclone is that its movement is not linear, not predictable. And it slows down rapidly -- unlike cyclones sustained by continuous energy feeding by a complexity of wind, hot and cold air , the coriolis effect and so forth -- although you are aware of the stories of houses in mid-west tornadoes being spared while all the houses surrounding it are destroyed. The movement is erratic.
I grant you that it is "easier to explain" the lampposts being downed by saying the plane hit them. But is it a better explanation -- wouldn't those posts have flown a heck of a lot further than they did and shown a lot more damage to their shafts?
But you are not trying to explain the down posts, you are making the claim that only a plane the size of the Boeing could explain these downed poles -- when that is not the case. You needed to show that the poles had to have been brought down by the Boeing -- that the killer jet could not have brought down pole number one (the southwest most pole) and other poles which you have not done.
Turbulence could have knocked down poles. And the Boeing could have knocked down one, two or three of the northern downed poles while the figher jet, one way or another, brought down one or more poles south.
Leonard Spencer:
Eastman then changes his mind on the lamp posts and contends that 'downed poles 3, 4, and/or 5 may have been brought down by the Boeing 757 as it proceeded to overfly the crash location on its way to Reagan National Airport'. I find this astonishing. Is he really suggesting that a Boeing 757, flying at over 450 mph and only a few feet above the ground, was capable of ascending so rapidly at this point that it could avoid hitting the Pentagon, by now only a couple of hundred metres in front of it? And what about those eyewitnesses, whose accounts he claims to hold in such high
regard? Where are the accounts that tell of the plane suddenly flying up and over the Pentagon, rather than into it? I certainly haven't seen them. You'd think someone would have noticed.
Dick Eastman:
"You'd think" doesn't cut it here.
I have presented evidence that the Pentagon was hit by a jet fighter and one or more missiles. The security camera shows the fin of the killer jet, the trailing smoke of the missile being fired in right relation to the tail fin. The plane is shown in two ways (comparison with the 71' height of the Pentagon and the too-long-to-fit-the-picture proportion between the size of a Boeing 757 tail fin and the length of its fuselage) -- the plane that is shown is too short to be a Boeing 757 and it is firing a missile (as further atested by the 120 ft. high bright white hot flash explosion that lights up the surroundings, that leaves powder burns on the side of the building, that is consistent with a warhead explosion -- (and did I mention the witness who smelled burned chordite?) -- and we have additionally, the many proofs derived from the photos of the Pentagon wall after the attack and before its collapse 19 minutes later. These photos show that the plane entered the first floor, that its tail fin took out the pillar between two windows on the second floor (pillar #14) -- that where a Boeing starboard engine would have had to have penetrated (between columns #16 and 18) there is interor structure, interior wall, still standing proving that no starboard wing engine of an airliner entered there. Yet there is room for an F-16 or comparable aircraft to have made that damage -- provided we allow for a missile that seems to have entered the second floor to the right of pillar 18 as well.
The Boeing was never down to ground level. Washington Blvd. where the poles are is elevated above the Pentagon, which sits in the floodplane of the Potomac, at the base of the Arlington Cemetery hill where the hotel, and Naval Annex stand. The Boeing flew 80 feet over the Annex which is itself a five story building on a hill above the Pentagon. Had the Boeing been that low people would have remarked on it -- and they would not have been reporting a dive and a "bounce." The Boeing overflew eighty or more feet abvove the ground -- the wall being 71 feet hight -- was covered by the flash of the missile warhead explosion (doubtless there for that purpose)
You are the only one to find the overflight and landing at Reagan National astonishing -- most people when they learn the proximity and location of the airport seem to dispel all remaining doubt as to what happened to the Boeing. Furthermore, the first telephoned in reports were of an airliner crashing on the 14th street bridge, the bridge that is beyond the crash and just north of the airport -- others reported a crash at the southmost end of the runway of Reagan.
Leonard Spencer:
In response to my point that a fighter jet is no more capable than a
passenger jet of flying through a doorway without damaging the door frames,
or of crashing into the Pentagon without leaving any wreckage, Eastman
finally gets round to citing the evidence that he believes actually supports
the small plane hypothesis.
Dick Eastman:
But the "doorframes" were damaged within the compass of where an F-16 or comparable jet fighter went through -
the hole at pillar 14 (where the nose hit) on the first-floor level does accomodate the entire F-16 jet -- and the jet did not hit anything because the missile blasted away the outside wall at that point, leaving the tail fin to collide with the pillar between windows on the second floor -- disintegrating in the process -- certainly not being recongnizabel afterwards -- which is a far different problem than an entire Boeing 757 which would have had to have had the engines go through the first floor and the fuselage throught the second and the tail fin through the third, which pillar wasn't even scratched, nor windows broken on the third floor. (And don't forget the engine that broke out in the C-ring.
Leonard Spencer:
He says:
'The small-plane finding is based on the security camera video, the
witnesses who heard a jet fighter, the witness who heard a sonic boom, the
performance of the radar blip, the need of a platform from which to fire the
missiles...'
Dick Eastman:
Hell, no. This is not all -- I merely am giving you some examples to show that the small-plane finding is based on other lines of evidence than those you were addressing. How misleading of you to you take this little off the cuff list of points as doing adequate justice to the many pieces of evidence pointing to a jet figher attack and the jetliner overflight.
The evidence can be examined by the reader by going here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5 And notice that Leonard has not referenced this site -- he has merely attempted to answer me on the fly, glib and dishonest and still misrepresenting conclusive evidence more imposing than he would care for you to know.
Leonard Spencer:
Let's take them one by one. The security camera footage actually shows only
a tail-fin, which could be that of a small plane but could equally belong to
a missile.
Dick Eastman:
1) The tail-fins of most air to ground missiles, are about the height of your computer tower. Missiles to not have the standard aircraft near parallelogram trapeziod shape: [] 2) The smoke trail left by the missile is too low with respect to the position of the tail fin, for it to be coming from that aircraft -- because -- if the missile was symmetrical in its fin configuration -- i.e., so that it looked like this from the rear: + -- then the bottom fin would be plowing through the lawn. HOWEVER -- IF YOU HAVE READ MY ACCOUNTS I AM OPEN TO THE IDEA OF A CRUISE MISSILE BEING THE "KILLER JET" AS LONG AS IT IS CAPABLE OF FIRING ANOTHER MISSILE AHEAD OF ITS OWN CRASH. There are a host of reasons why the F-16 would be the better choice -- but I have repeadedly said for over a year that the killer jet could have been a custom made attack platform -- but the tail fin and the smoke trail bespeak a fighter jet --
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5 Leonard Spencer:
he witnesses who heard a jet fighter did not actually see one,
they only heard an engine.
Dick Eastman:
Yes, that's what I said. Military man in the Pentagon heard a jet fighter. Don't witnesses ears count in your kind of analysis. I mentioned it because it is positive support -- THIS WITNESS HEARING A JET IS NOT ONE OF MY PROOFS -- IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SMALL-PLANE THESIS, IT DOES NOT PROVE IT -- MY OTHER EVIDENCE (SEE URL) DOES THAT -- EVIDENCE I HAVE DISCUSSED ABOVE AND OTHER EVIDENCE.
Leonard Spencer:
The sonic boom indicated only the plane's speed, not its size.
Dick Eastman:
But the airliner that wintesses saw was going much slower, "as though coming in for a landing." Nothing could be making a sonic boom near the Pentagon except a military jet fighter, most likely an F-16. The boom definitely is not consistent with the plane the passengers were watching, i.e., with the Boeing.
Leonad Spencer:
The radar blip indicated its speed and manoeuvrability, again
not its size.
Dick Eastman:
Yes, Leonard, it had the speed of an F-16, the maneuverability of an F-16. Those are the significant data. The blip cannot tell the size -- that is a datum we must forego -- but the other two data are signficant and they say fighter jet.
Leonard Spencer:
And missiles can be fired from planes of any size and can also fly independently. None of this therefore constitutes solid proof of a small plane, though admittedly the radar blip is suggestive of one.
Dick Eastman:
"None of this constituties solid proof" and non-of it was claimed to constitute solid proof, or even deemed relevant, except as a report from the air-traffic controllers of aircraft behavior consistent with a "small aircraft" and inconsistent with a Boeing 757.
I do not think that the perpetrators would have risked something so unusual and "tell-tale" as firing a missile from some location remote from the Pentagon. A missile fired from a plane is a visible event. A missile fired from a nearby truck also has it risks. A missile coming in on its own from a great distance -- a missile with a tail fin like a plane, is possible. But the best missile of this type to use would be a remote-controlled F-16 -- which is my thesis and what I have said all along -- the best documented presentation of a position in internet history.
Leonard:
He then adds:
'the flash-powder proximity warhead that left powder burns on the outside of
the building, the warhead that brought down the first floor outer wall over
thirty feet on either side of column 14 -- and the penetrating warhead that
entered on the second floor to the right of the killer jet entry point.'
Dick:
Yes, it is all shown. Civil Engineers diagrams. Photos of the wall damage. All of it right here in proof #2:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5 Leonard Spencer:
These unsubstantiated assertions about warheads do not constitute proof of a
small plane.
Dick Eastman:
I have offered a range of possibilities -- the F-16 being the most likely given what is known, but also admitting the possibility of other fighter aircraft, of a missile-firing cruise missile, of a specially designed aircraft specific to this operation. All of them together are given the general name "small-plane" explanations, to distinguish them from the ruled-out Big-Boeing-did-it explanation. Leonard is simply, without compelling reason, saying that he has ruled out the jet fighter explanation, but has not given one reason to back this decision on his part -- he has given nothing that is incompatible with the jet fighter explanation -- nor has he undermined the various evidence that makes this the most likely among "small plane" choices. Leonard has just wasted more of my time and your time -- and created more division for the coverup to point to as they say "See, not two 9-11 investigators can agree on what happened."
But most serious of all is this: Anyone reading Leonard's hatchet job on the "small plane" thesis would walk away convinced by Leonard, because of the straw-man version he has presented, and that deceived person would never suspect the multiple lines of evidence each independenly proving that the Boeing did not crash into the Pentagon, that the Boeing overflew the building, and that several other things were going on ancillary to the operation, both before, during and after the intial explosion-crash event that eliminate any innocent explanation, that rules out the official story, that deiscredits the coverup, that proves Pentagon-leadership complicity in the 9-11 frameup operation.
Leonard Spencer:
It's not that I necessarily disagree, it's just that evidence of missiles does not constitute evidence of a small plane.
Dick Eastman:
See what I say about size and relative position of tail fin with respect to smoke trail, above.
Leonard Spencer:
And he never does get round to explaining how a fighter jet could fly through that doorway
without damaging the doorframes or leaving its wreckage on the lawn.
Dick Eastman:
There is no "doorway." The missile brought down the outer wall on the first floor, which had been a row of windows -- and with the wall section destoyed the jet fighter flew directly into the building -- only its tail fin hitting on the second floor -- where it pushed out column #14.
Leonard Spencer:
He merely asserts that 'the F-16 entered the first floor unobstructed'. Really?
How did it manage that then?
Dick Eastman:
That was one of the functions of the missile. (And there likely was a second missile the funcion of which was to kill specific personel in Naval Intelliegnce targeted by Rumsfeld, Wolfowtiz, Perle, Kissinger, Meyers etc.)
Leonard Spencer:
When he says 'For Leonard Spencer to say that no one saw F-16 debris INSIDE THE BUILDING' Eastman is actually on the verge of making a good point.
Dick Eastman:
I'm content to leave it to the readers of this exchange to determine whose points are valid and who is simply blowing smoke all around the issue for reasons becoming more and more obvious. (I am accusing you of not wasting our time and deflecting our focus out of stupidity, but for a definite nonlaudatory purpose. Otherwise there is not point for your frivolous attack and your rotten attitude.
Leonard Spencer:
He's right; I indeed don't know what wreckage was really found in the Pentagon. But when he concludes from this that it 'reveals a lot about Leonard Spencer and his very obviously dishonest grasping for straws to make a counter argument where no counter argument is possible', I can't help wondering who is really grasping for straws here. The point is that if an F-16 deposited
its wreckage in the Pentagon then it had to get into the Pentagon in the first place. There is no entry hole of sufficient size to support this.
Dick Eastman:
The hole, after the bottom floor wall was taken down by the missile -- see evidence of how pillar #15 was blasted away, with the steel reinforcement rods still in hanging there -- the hole of sufficient size was there before the fighter reached the wall.
When Eastman concludes that I wrote my article to garner 'all of the
prestige for research' and 'to discredit the hard evidence', I can only
suggest he's getting slightly carried away. I certainly deserve no prestige
for what is, as I have already conceded, a largely derivative piece of work
(and yes, I should have been more careful in citing my sources). Whether or
not I discredit the hard evidence I leave to others to judge, though I'm not
quite sure what hard evidence Eastman has in mind. He says also that my
alternative theory 'has no basis whatsoever'. In a sense that's true. The
theory is only conjecture, because there is no photograph or video footage
of the plane to corroborate it, but this of course applies to all the
hypotheses out there, including Mr Eastman's.
Dick Eastman:
Here we see that Spencers goal is to deny the hard evidence exists -- the hard evidence proving that the Boeing did not hit the wall, that another smaller aircraft with the tail fin of an airplane and that fired a missile from a postion relative to the fin that fits a missile launching from under the attacking aircraft's wing.
Leonard has floated a deliberately weaker theory, concealed the completeness and abundance of the various lines of proof of the small-plane finding -- all for the purpose of leaving with the reader the definite impression that the quality of evidence is much inferior than what it really in fact is.
Leonard Spencer:
I must confess that I too find my theory unsatisfactory and only half-plausible and say as much in the article. I nonetheless feel, perhaps wrongly, that it goes some way towards reconciling all the available evidence in a way that some other theories, including Mr Eastman's, do not.
Dick Eastman:
There it is! Spencer now says, truthfully, that his theory isn't much, and adds, very untruthfully, that his theory is the best thought out theory possible and better than all those that have been offered, including every variant of the "small plane thesis."
Leonard Spencer has moved up from his old role as tomato thrower -- to the status of a very shifty trial lawyer skilled in discrediting honest people by careful crafting of oblique allusion, misrepresentation, insinuation -- hoping to convince those to lazy to check the evidence themselves -- which, although the evidence is there to see by simple direct inspection, still requires some thinking and effort -- and so Spencer hinges his hope of keeping down the only evidence that can stop the oligarchy.
Leonard Spencer:
He believes my article is a 'SOPHISTICATED DISINFORMATION-OP' and that my motive is to discredit other 9-11 investigators. It's not. It's just yet another attempt to make some sense out of what is pretty skimpy and confusing evidence.
Dick Eastman:
Not to sophisticated, because it is so easily dispensed with, Leonard.
There are five distinct proofs that the Boeing was not the plane, and more proofs that an operation was underway. You, Leonard Spencer, I accuse of withholding the real small-plane evidence as you did you hatchet job on the straw man. You never wrote to me about the theory you were bent on discrediting, not as you were preparing your material nor after you put it out. And it never appeared in any of the forums where I am known to subscribe -- and I would never have seen your bogus send-up of the small plane thesis, had not Peter Meyer and John Kaminsky sent me the URL.
In other words, I caught you -- doing the same kind of decitful coverup dirtywork that I early caught Sarah Roberts and John Judge doing.
Let it be known to all reading this -- the proof of the guilt of the Bush Administration is the evidence from the attack on the Pentagon -- the various evidence that all points to a smaller aircraft and a missile being involved in the crash and deaths and the Boeing overflying the crash and landing at Reagan National Airport just six seconds beyond.
I can't help wondering whether what really irks Eastman is that I've strayed onto his patch and should have stuck with the New York planes where I belong. If this is the case I can only suggest that he calms down a bit and allows others to have their say. We are, after all, on the same side in all this. We both know that 9-11 was an inside job and that the future of humanity is at risk if people don't wake up to the fact. Does it really matter how big the damned plane was?
Dick Eastman:
Does it matter how big the plane was? Answer: Yes. It matters that the plane could not have been as big as a Boeing. IT matters that the plane behaved as a jet fighter on radar, that it sounded like a jet fighter to one military ear. That a missile was also heard and a sonic boom. It matters that the actual picture of the attack shows a plane that is too short to have been the Boeing -- that it shows the missile trial.
BECAUSE -- SAVING THIS FOR LAST -- THE MISSILE WAS NOT FIRED FROM THE PLANE JUST BEFORE IMPACT -- THEN HOW COME THE MISSILE SMOKE WAS NOT SEEN WAY BACK WHERE THE LAMPPOSTS WERE -- OR ANYPLACE WHERE WITNESSES SAID THEY SAW PLANES APPROACHING -- WHY WAS THE MISSILE TRAIL ONLY AT THE CRASH POINT -- ONLY POSSIBLE ANSWER: BECAUSE THE MISSILE WAS FIRED FROM RIGHT THERE AS THE PLANE WAS HEADING IN.
Regards
Leonard Spencer
Sincerly,
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
