This discussion came to us by
email we didn't write it,
but is sure is interesting..
Stick
with this one -- it starts
boring, but it warms up.
Two
things of note --
1)
Webfairy has found the clincher proving
the whatzit is a day
stealth cruise missile used to
murder so many New Yorkers in
the frame-up attack on the WTC
North Tower on Sept. 11, 2001. This
strongest possible evidence
reinforces the other
incontrovertible
clincher evidence of the
security cam video of
the small-jet and missile attack
on the Pentagon -- double "smoking-guns"
fully sufficient to convict the
Frame-up Junta now
in control of our Government of
the most horrible single act of
murder in our history.
All that is wanting for justice
to begin moving is
that the American public learn
about this evidence, understand the
implications, and do the
preliminary work of throwing out the
whore bipartisan CFR Congress
who lap dance for Big Business who created
a climate in America where super
rich Americans believe they
can murder other
Americans, whom they feel to be
lower class and thus
inferior) to provide false
pretext for attacking two
totally innocent even
scrupulously moral Moslem
nations for the sake
of oil monopoly, and of
continuing opium/heroin
laundered
revenues into Establishment
investment banks for
investment
in China's proletarian
slave factories, strengthening
the most
ruthless and powerful
dictatorship by organized
crime in the world.
(e.g., remember the
magnificently heroic, moral
and correct stand of Mullah
Omar when confronted by the
Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz "shoot
first talk later"
criminality.) So now we
have two smoking guns,
each ample to convict, and no
investigation worthy of the name.
And
that explains why the other
noteworthy item has suddenly appeared.
Understand Brian Downing Quig is
doing, and you will
certainly no longer be a babe in
the woods when it comes to
psy-op discrediting of critical
convicting evidence.
Now
for the BIG EVENT.
2)
Brian Downing Quig, in his
"Abstract of 9/11
evidence," has given a
well-stated summary of -- now
get this! -- of only
the inconclusive and
equivocal circumstantial
evidence that points to a 9/11
frame-up -- the
supporting evidence that by
itself is not "smoking
gun" evidence, that
is merely evidence of the
kind that a Philadelphia lawyer can
easily cast
sufficient doubt and uncertainty
over to keep any grand
jury from
handing down an indictment.
The key to any defense of the
Frame-up
Junta is to see to it that the
Security Cam evidence and the whatzit
evidence are never presented.
The
reader will recall that I
asked Quig, why he so scrupulously
avoided even
mentioning the existence of the
Defense Department Security
Camera video that shows the actual
attacking small
jet, the missile it fired, the
characteristic missile explosion?
Why did he write such an effective
"abstract of
9/11 evidence," and
distribute it so widely in channels
where the
Pentagon evidence is well known,
while not even
mentioning this "smoking
fun" that by itself can
carry the day in any case against
the Junta?
With
his response (below) to my
inquiry, I am forced to conclude that
Quig's purpose in writing his
"9-11 Abstract" has
been to
defeat the best Pentagon evidence
by establishing himself as a
"911 expert" and then,
on the basis of credibility her
gains for
himself in defending all the weak
and inconclusive evidence, using
his thus acquired credibility
capital to brush aside and
pooh-pooh the
only totally sufficient and
conclusive evidence that could win
the case.
Quig
must have anticipated that we
would all welcome his
added articulate and intelligent
voice, that we would
be
grateful to him, a man with
courage who spoke up at a time
when our calls for an
investigation based on the real evidence
were being universally ignored in
all but our own circle
of the awake and the
informed. He must also
have anticipated
that we would follow the
lead of this clear-thinking clear-writing
champion and wander away from video
frames that show
both the attack on the WTC by the
watzit stealth cruise missile and
the small-jet-with-missile attack
on the Pentagon.
I am
convinced that Brian
Downing Quig began his
writing project,
his spin operation, having already
identified the
two smoking guns that can bring
conviction of the
9-11 Junta, that he knew this
evidence could hang the
traitor killers now riding high.
And I am convinced that knowing
all that, he deliberately
undertook, with psy-op
ingratiation and spin
wearing good-guy-stripe camouflage
-- to trick us into abandoning
our only sure case.
Now
let's look at Quig's reply:
Brian Downing Quig wrote:
> If there was a second small
plane then it is still not
> worth mentioning.
I have seen more professional
> disinformation regarding
these "other planes"
then for
> any other cover up effort
of the crime.
> That is because what I have
said about the planes being
> the conclusive proof is so
conclusive that the spin doctors
> are concentrating on it.
> I suggest you try to study
this issue and fully understand
it
> before you come back with
some defense of some
insignificant
> detail.
> Brian
> And please webfairy hold
your comment for me by phone
> which is better.
>
> Dick Eastman wrote:
>> Dear Mr. Quig, Your
essay summarizing reasons for
> >concluding that Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz etc. are
complicit
> > in the September
11 killings is very persuasive,
but please tell
> > me why you chose not
to include the Pentagon security
video
> > evidence of a small
plane attack? Are you
aware of this evidence?
> > What is your attitude
towards this information? Are
you aware that
> > by writing such an
otherwise complete case for
the complicity of the
> > administration in this
monstrous crime you are, through
your omission
> > of it, as much as
saying that you to not recognize
what is the most
> > conclusive evidence of
all? Please explain this
omission.
> > Dick Eastman
> >Yakima, Washington.
Analysis:
Quig
(in black) says
> If there was a second small
plane then it is still not
> worth mentioning.
DE
(red): A
"second" small
plane? This is totally
disingenuous. Quig
knows full well the one
small plane was the only plane
that hit the Pentagon.
He knows this has always been
our claim. He
knows that what I asked him
about was THE ONE AND ONLY PLANE
IN THE DoD SECURITY CAM
VIDEO THAT IS SHOWN ATTACKING
THE PENTAGON -- yet weasel
Brian Quig spins and deflects
and misrepresents, hoping that
readers are asleep or have
just walked in on the
conversation -- BRIAN,
CERTAINLY THE PLANE CAUGHT IN
THE ACT ATTACKING
THE PENTAGON -- THE ONLY
PLANE I
HAVE REFERRED TO IN THIS
DISCUSSION -- IS
VERY MUCH WORTH MENTIONING
-- but equally certain
is it that you have just
let slip your goal of
attempting to
see to it that this
powerful evidence not be
mentioned.
> I have seen more
professional
> disinformation regarding
these "other planes"
then for
> any other cover up effort
of the crime.
So
we must accept that Brian
Quig knows
"professional disinformation"
when he sees it, and that he
has seen it
in regard to "other
planes" (again acting as
if I am not talking
about the one world-famous
plane in the video that
is caught in the act of firing a
missile into the Pentagon and
then following that missile into the target.)
Let's
get this straight. Brian
Quig says he saw "professional
disinformation" regarding
"these other planes"
and therefore we should
therefore ignore the
Pentagon's own video camera
which captures the actual
attack plane in
the act of firing the missile
and crash bombing the building?
Is
this rat gutsy or what?
And where do they breed lying rats
like this, Harvard Business
School?)
> That is because what I
have said about the planes
being
> the conclusive proof is
so conclusive that the spin
doctors
> are concentrating on it.
Wait
a minute! You say that YOU
said the planes are
"conclusive proof"? and that it is against YOUR
assertion that the planes are "conclusive
proof" that "spin
doctors" are concentrating
on it?
Duh!
I thought I was making the point
about the "conclusive
proof" of
the Pentagon video and
that YOU were the spin doctor
attempting to sweep
it under the carpet. How bold
of you to point out to everyone
that Brian Downing Quig is
really the man with the plane proof
and that Dick Eastman is the
spin doctor. Very fancy
footwork, that,
Quig. Too bad for you I
saw it coming. (I've
tangled with dirty
fighters before.)
> I suggest you try to study
this issue and fully understand
it
> before you come back with
some defense of some
insignificant
> detail.
Gee,
fella, thanks for the advice.
I've always wanted to look into the
Pentagon stuff, but I do have this
problem about concentrating on
details, like this spot on my desk
that looks like a camel? Why do
you suppose it looks like a camel?
Could it be that its some secret Arab
signal telling me that my cover as
a "spin doctor" has been
discovered and
that I should hightail it
back to the base in Iraq?
-- Hey, Webfairly, this is
Achmed "the Dagger"
Eastman -- we've been found
out!!! Grab your veil and meet
me at the submarine at 22:20
hours, tonight.
Quig
is not just a freeper, trying to
get my goat -- rather he is
doing two things: 1)
discrediting me while establishing himself,
without true basis, as a big
scientific investigator, and 2)
calling the Pentagon video of the
actual attack, the only known direct
evidence of this kind -- as
"some insignificant detail"
-- when in fact it is a fabric of
many critical details, all
different yet
mutually reinforcing (e.g., the
nature of the explosion, the smoke plume
behind the jet, the small size of
the jet -- which ties in
with and
corroborates other findings of, for
example, the too small a
hole in the Pentagon, the lack of
airliner debris, the witnesses who
saw a small plane, the
discrediting (by Gerard Holmgen) of
the witnesses who claimed to have
seen a Boeing hit the building,
the stand down of the air force,
the stand down of intelligence,
the long leisurely and roundabout
flight taken by
the hijacked airliner after radio
communication was cut and
after the transponder was shut
off; and the presence of Israelis
at both Dulles (where flight 77
took off) and Reagan National
(two miles from the Pentagon,
where Flight 77 landed) who
had illegal top security passes
enabling them to gain access
to the tower, baggage, and the
hanger where Flight 77 taxied
after landing, and the loading
docks and busses or trucks used
in taking the passengers and crew
from the airport.
>And please webfairy hold your
comment for me by phone which is
better.
And
let us not ignore this little side
message to Webfairy. Quig is
asking Webfairy
not to post her questions and
objections to Quig's replies, to this
forum, asking instead that
discussion be conducted privately over
the telephone -- just
as Ron Harvey and "Isopodia"
got Dave Bosankoe writing
and phoning out of the public
eye and unknown to me, engaging in flattery
of his "math page" and
so forth, and telling him (which
was true) how
much more reasonable and fair
minded he is than his loose cannon collaborator
in Yakima. So that after I
returned from a two week vacation at
Lake Huron, Bosankoe had
removed his website and all of the Pentagon
graphics and links that all
of my posts refer to for visual
and graphic
support in my newsgroup postings
(so that all of those posts
of mine discuss
the evidence of pictures that now
cannot be seen. BUT
ASIDE FROM FLATTERY AND A CHANCE
TO WOO THE OLD GAL INTO
BACKING OFF FROM BUSH'S JUGULAR --
QUIG DOES NOT WANT TO
BE PUT ON THE SPOT --
HE KNOWS THE PENTAGON EVIDENCE IS
"SMOKING GUN" DEADLY TO
THE JUNTA AND HE KNOWS THAT
HE MUST SOMEHOW SPIN IT INTO A
DITCH (HIS TWO LETTERS TELL
US THAT) BUT HE ALSO
KNOWS THAT EVEN THE BEST LIARS
CANNOT COME UP WITH SPIN WHEN THE
OPPONENT CAN ASK
POINTED QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS
STATEMENTS AND EVIDENCE. BEFORE
THE PUBLIC (why do you think
the Establishment spends hundreds of
billions to maintain its clamp on
true open discussion in the mass
media) --
THAT IS WHY SO FEW TAKE ME ON IN
THIS WILD AND WOOLY MEDIUM
(ALL THAT "INSIGNIFICANT
DETAIL" QUIG LOATHES COMES
BACK TO
ROOST -- YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT
DOES) SO
QUIG WANTS TO TALK TO WEBFAIRY ON
THE PHONE RATHER THAN
OUT FRONT WHERE HIS SLIPS CAN BE
CAUGHT AND RUBBED IN
HIS FACE. Finally, a man
interested in the truth, wants to
communicate on
the lists and newsgroups -- here
there is a permanent record, here
there is
a chance to see what was said and
look at it critically and refer
back to it
and to compare it with new
information that presents itself.
When you talk
on the phone and get caught in a
lie or in a contradiction, you can merely
recover by saying --
"that is not what I
said," or "that is
not what I meant," or
"you heard me wrong"
-- this is what I suspect
Quig dreads, this also is
what I love about this medium
-- and because I am confident that
I am a friend of the
truth working for the truth
-- I can write as carelessly as I
do, never proofreading, etc.
Do you
take offense at this, Brian Quig?.
If so, then let me give you
a fighting chance
to prove me wrong:
Before the very big jury of public opinion that this letter is
reaching,
ANSWER
THIS:
WHY
DID YOU IGNORE AND THEN DISMISS AS
INSIGNIFICANT THE
OVERWHELMINGLY IMPORTANT EVIDENCE
OF THE ONLY VIDEO PICTURE
OF THE ATTACK TAKING PLACE
-- THE EVIDENCE OF
WHAT THE FRAMES OF THE ATTACK SHOW
--AS OUTLINED (ONCE
AGAIN) BELOW. Read it
carefully -- your own reputation
and your family name are on trial
here. Here is exactly what I
sent you before. --------
"Two world wars, shame on
them.
A third world war, shame on
us."
THIS PENTAGON SECURITY CAM VIDEO
SEQUENCE
IS "SMOKING-GUN"
EVIDENCE, ESTABLISHING
THE
SEPTEMBER 11 MASS-MURDER
AS AN
"INSIDE-JOB"
FRAME-UP CONSPIRACY TO
INVOLVE THE U.S. IN
A FOR-PROFIT WAR.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp?cp1=1
Notes:
1)
the size of tail fin image
in frame #1 requires that
for the plane to be a
Boeing 757 the front end
of fuselage would
have to be visible
extending out
to the left of the
stone driveway pillar
in the
picture.
Check:
a)
the 757 is over seven
times the
length of its own tail
fin, i.e., it would
take seven
and a quarter tail fins
to cover the back
of a Boeing 757,
Stegosaurus style, from
the tailfin in
the rear to the
nose, but the width of
the
image of the driveway
pillar that conceals the
attacking plane's entire
fuselage is only five
times as wide as the
tail fin that appears
sticking
up above and behind the
pillar (so that
regardless
of angle of approach to
the Pentagon wall or of distance
of the aircraft from the
camera, the plane
simply cannot be
aircraft of the length
and form
of a Boeing 757;
b) a 757 is
155 feet long and the
Pentagon
is only 71 feet high,
but by direct
inspection,
if the aircraft behind
that pillar was
stood on
end against the
wall, say half way to
the far end
of the wall from the
impact point, it would
only
stand about 70
percent as high as the
wall -- the
method is rough, but the
margin of error is
certainly not 218
percent.
2)
the presence of the
unmistakable white
horizontal missile
plume being launched by
the plane to weaken the
wall in the
vicinity of impact so
that the jet can
easily invade the
Pentagon interior without
give-away aircraft
parts bouncing back on
the grass and giving
away the
frame-up;
3) in
frame #2 the
tell-tale white-hot
initial explosion of
the missile warhead is
definitely neither a
jet fuel kerosene
fire, nor the
result of aluminum, plastic and
flesh crashing into
brick, concrete and glass;
4)
the blossom of white-hot
explosion of the missile warhead spreads laterally,
more so than the
subsequent jet
fuel flames that
in frame #3 come from
inside the Pentagon, suggesting
that the warhead was
designed to trigger
at the split second of
impact rather than after entry
through the wall.
All
existing cover-up scenarios seeking
to explain away
this smoking-gun evidence
have just been answered.
Yours
truly,
Dick
Eastman
|