Here is enough to put away
for life most of the top men in
the Administration.
Decide for yourself whether
or not Bush, Cheney, Rice,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,
Pearle, Kissinger and Gingrich are
innocent or guilty of mass-murder. THIS
PENTAGON SECURITY CAM VIDEO
SEQUENCE
IS
"SMOKING-GUN"
EVIDENCE, ESTABLISHING THE
SEPTEMBER
11 MASS-MURDERS AS AN" INSIDE-JOB"
FRAME-UP CONSPIRACY
(Note the small short jet, the
missile plume, the tell-tale
white-hot initial explosion of
the missile warhead. A
Boeing 757 aircraft is
more than twice the 71-foot
height
of the Pentagon, whereas the
attacking craft shown is
no more than 50 feet long.)
Take the first frame in this
sequence (above.) Take the
straight edge of a piece
of paper and place it running
from
tail to nose of the image of the
aircraft; then using the
edge
as a rule, make a mark on the
paper next to the
right-most
point of the aircraft (either
the tip of the tail fin or the
end of
the exhaust area under the
tail) then, with the first
point still anchored on the left-most
point of the plane, mark
a second point on the edge of the
paper right where you estimate
the tip of the nose (radome) to
be.
This gives you the
length of the plane's image in
the picture, marked on the edge of the
paper -- and we will call
that distance unit one "apl"
(apparent plane length).
Next, look at the picture and locate
the point along the wall where you think the plane's
nose hit the building
(forgetting that a missile got there
first).
Now place your 1 apl
length measure vertically over
the dot you located on the image of the
Pentagon to compare length of plane image with height of
Pentagon image at point
of impact (i.e., you have stood the
image of the plane up against
the image of the Pentagon at the
spot of impact to compare
heights.)
My 1 apl is always shorter
than the Pentagon wall.
Now, if the Pentagon image is
70 arbitrary units in height at the identified point
of impact, then my 1 apl
line is equal to about 50, or 45, but never
60 units in length.
But the Pentagon is further
away than the plane in the first frame of the sequence -- it
is further to the left of the center of the camera view than
the plane is to the right -- But this means that the
error in the above exercise,
due to perspective and distance, errs
on the side of representing the plane as bigger than it
is. The image of the
plane is closer than the image of the
point of impact on the
Pentagon. Thus is, if you add the
factor of distance from
camera, you must subtract length from the
plane, not add. If the image of the plane is 50/70ths
of the height of the Pentagon
at that the target point, then
the actual plane must have
been shorter than 50/70ths of the
Pentagons 71-foot height.
But nerdcity.com claims
that the plane came in
at a 45 degree angle and that
therefore the image of
the plane in the picture is foreshortened.
They make this claim solely on the basis of a hole in Ring
C of the Pentagon which they claim, following Pentagon
official statements, was made by a jet engine breaking
through after the crash. But the hole is well off to
the side, not at all straight across from where the plane
entered the building, but well to the right. Too
well off to the side, too well
to the right to be believable
-- because between this hole in C-ring and any
possible point of initial
entry of the plane into the front
facade of the building there is a large section of
untouched A-ring offices right in the way. The
engine could not have gone around those offices after
entering A-ring to reach that hole. Whatever the
explanation of that hole, it is not the exit hole of the
jet engine resulting from the collision of the jet.
This explanation of the hole in C-ring is totally
discredited by simple inspection of shots of the
damage from the lawn and from the air. (I
will download these photos to anyone upon request
-- or visit the "French site" listed below.)
The evidence for a 45-degree angle approach is totally
spurious. Conclusion: A
view of the entry point and the
location of the C-ring hole
shows that the engine could not have
made the hole
because a straight line from any
possible entry point along the damaged front cannot be
connected to the C-ring hole without passing through a
large section of totally
untouched portions of A-ring offices
-- sections of undamaged
office that were not even
cleared away in the cleanup!
The plane hit the facade at
nearly a 90-degree angle. Note
that the port side of the
plane's tail fin appears to be facing the camera. Note
also, that the poles are
directly across from the plane so that if the
plane hit a pole near the
two trees then it approached the face of
the building at roughly a 90 degree angle just as the video
indicates.
There is no reason for
claiming that the image of
this plane has been foreshortened by 300
percent because of angle of approach. The trail
of smoke precludes that
possibility; the full facing of the tail
fin precludes that
possibility; and the course of the plane from
first frame to collision
precludes that possibility.
In short, there is no way you
can massage mathematical
equations and get a plane that is 100
feet long, i.e., longer than
the Pentagon is tall, much less on
that is 155 feet long.
------
Ron Harvey says that 5 poles
were downed.
Ever hear that from any other
source?
I saw eye witness
testimony that one pole
was "clipped."
I also read the Holmgen
analysis of serious problems with all media witnesses
accounts that were represented as supporting the contention
that a Boeing was seen hitting the Pentagon. In
fact the reliable reporting is
of witnesses claiming to have
seen a smaller plane, to have heard a fighter jet or a
missile, not an airliner.
I have not seen a picture of
five downed poles. If
there is one I would like to ask
whether it was faked, or
whether the poles were taken
down well after the accident and photographed
then -- you will notice
that in the picture Harvey does
send that the downed
poles are not shown with the Pentagon
wreckage in
the background. Would
YOU take a picture of downed poles
without "telling the
story" by getting the Pentagon in the
background? Obviously
the picture was taken to tell a story
about poles, not about the
appearance of the Pentagon area at the
time of the shot. And if
you took the pictures to establish
Harvey's theory, would you not
want to get a shot of the line of
broken poles leading right to
the damage area? Where is
such a picture?
We are also well aware of the
C-130 that was reported by one or more witnesses
-- it has figured in
several postings (mine included)
-- but since we know
that it was not a C-130 that the
security camera caught attacking the Pentagon, it has
not been given much attention, because it does not
make the case. It is a mystery, it should not have
been there, but it is not part of the smoking gun
evidence that is the "small-jet" attack.
I do not call the Pentagon
evidence that you gentlemen have made so obvious
"smoking gun"
evidence merely to flatter David Bosankoe
-- I call it that because it
is the only evidence that
unequivocally establishes that
a Boeing did not hit the
Pentagon. And it does so
in multiple, mutually reinforcing
ways: 1) the length of
the plane, 2) the missile
plume, 3) the white-heat
of the initial explosion tell-tale of high
explosive, and 4) the
horizontal approach (countering all
witnesses who saw an airliner dive "at an irrecoverable
angle" followed by smoke
-- not refuting what they saw,
but establishing that the plane they saw was another
plane, a plane that did not crash into the Pentagon, a
plane that may or may not have been Flight 77.
Ron Harvey is saying that
the security video evidence
could be a "red herring"
(as when a man being
stalked puts out some smelly herring fish to
throw dogs off his scent.
) Ron Harvey is not only
presenting flawed data, he is
arguing for dismissal of the video
evidence.
How easy it is for a good
lawyer to twist up people in a
jury.
Yet Harvey does not address
the plume, or the horizontal
approach, or the white hot
explosion. He claims, without real evidence, that five poles
were down -- and therefore everything established by the
video camera recording of the disaster is of no value.
Yet, his five poles down -- if photographs of this exist --
are no more valid than the videos of bin Laden that
weren't bin Laden at all
-- and for all we know they could
have been created in the same laboratory (that is
if they were not taken of the poles during
"repairs" days after
the event.)
The evidence is not based on
our veracity or our mental
acuity. We have functioned as
scientists. We have
analyzed this data, and we told
people how we did it so
they could replicate or procedures and check our
results -- the replication criterion of scientific validity. Yet
the Bosankoe sequencing of the
frames is not essential to making this
case. The same
story is told by the stills viewed
separately, except it is not
as immediately obvious as with the
animation of the frames in sequence.
Gentlemen, let me add this one
last remark.
You have seen the data day
after day. It is old to
you. You want something new to grip
people with. You want new means of verifying the
story. You want support from a variety of sources.
You have been showing the video for months and no
one has offered you the Congressional Medal of
Honor yet or the Victoria Cross.
And you know that those you
talk with every day have seen it
again and again -- and that the internet likes
novelty and sensation --
and so many people are trying to
save the nation by disclosing the most recent enormity
committed by our deviant
elites.
And so you are tempted to
leave this story, and go on to new things.
But gentlemen, this is the
only "smoking gun"
-- the very fact that the media
refuses to pick it up, pretending that the French
approach to the Pentagon case is the only one,
is proof enough that the perpetrators know
what you have here.
And Ron Harvey, with his five
downed poles, is telling you that pursuing the
Pentagon security cam evidence will harm the
case because it is a red herring.
Just as another guy was
recently approaching me, saying that he was going for
the economic evidence (i.e., the short sells)
and that the "physical
evidence guys" (us) were
ruining the case they were
building and making them look bad
(i.e., red herring again).
Remember the term "Red
Herring" in American
politics was introduced by Truman
against McCarthy after McCarthy's speech in the
Senate revealing the role of George C. Marshall in
betraying Chaing Kai-shek and helping Mao and his
communists to victory in
China. We know now that McCarthy was
right. (By the way, McCarthy was not part of the
House Un-American Activities Committee that investigated
actors and writers etc.
He only made a rash accusation
about one individual who had indeed been a
Communist
-- but a good lawyer made him sympathetic and a
martyr
-- successfully discrediting McCarthy in public opinion.
In short, the term "red
Herring" as it was used, aided the
cover-up of the very real
communist conspiracy that lost China
-- I live next door to
the son of Pandergast's lawyer (Herb
Riddle) who ran Truman's early campaigns in Missouri
-- even Truman was not free
from the taint of crookedness --
admirable as he is to me in many ways -- forgive the
digression -- don't
loose my point:
Don't let someone
"red-herring" you
out of the smoking gun evidence that can bring the
world justice.
Also, I hope
lwc@reclaimaustrailia.net
is not the guy from
nerdcity. It he is then, between him and
Ron Harvey and his lampposts, I'd say that someone is
trying to do a number on you, and that you had better
realize it fast.
Think about it and let me
know.
Dick
PENTAGON
NO-BOEING EVIDENCE ANALYSIS
SITES (wholeheartedly
endorsed and recommended)
E.
O. Fescado:
http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/pent.html
Jarred
Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/treason.htm
www.tenc.net
(mirror of emperors-cloths)
French Sites
(in English) and Thierry
Meyssan
http://thewebfairy.com/whatzit/french.html
Ultimate 911 frame-up overview.
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/images-pentagone/index.htm
http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/PentagonCrash.html
WORLD
MESSENGER:
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/messenger.html
APFN:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/911_truth.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC.htm
Mike
Ruppert
http://www.fromthewilderness.com
Other
highly recommended:
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/sources.html
http://www.skolnicksreport.com/ Sherman
Skolnik
http://www.world-action.co.uk
http://geocities.com/mknemesis/colonels.html
http://www.Public-Action.com Carol
A. Valentine
http://www.falloutshelternews.com/9_11_ODDITIES.html
http://www.truthout.com Truthout
http://www.truthout.org
www.tenc.net
(mirror of emperors-cloths)
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP206A.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,737060,00.html
http://www.atlantic.net/~lakota/opinion.html
E-lists:
frame-up-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
psy-op-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
apfn-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
SeptemberDisaster-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
|