Explosive dick eastman exposes victoria ashley and other fake 9-11 truthers
69
Explosive: Dick Eastman exposes Victoria Ashley and other fake 9/11 truthers What Kind of Girl Disagrees with Dick Eastman? Victoria Ashley and her book I just found a four-year-old "debunking" critique of my evidence-derived conclusion that the Boeing witnesses say flying towards the Pentagon actually flew over the Pentagon while planted bombs went off and a much smaller single-engine plane or missle (AGMs and cruise/drone) struck below. The critique was written in August of 2009 by Victoria Ashley, shown below. As always not one 9-11 "truther" bothered to inform me that this critique existed. Victoria Ashely is one of a group of "false opposition", cover-up agents like Jim Fetzer and Alex Jones who obstruct justice to protect international organized crime that has gotten control of the American state apparatus and is conducting unconventional "Sun-tse" warfare against the United States with infiltration, sabotage and provocateur operations like 9-11. Who were the passengers of 9-11? Many of them appear to have been agents with false identities whose identities, but not their lives, were terminated with the 9-11 operation. Before I rebut Victoria Ashley here is an article exposing some famous disinfo artists who were both reported "victims" of 9-11 and who have have become Truthers who have conspicuously been gatekeepers and promoters of bogus theories and evidence. Just to motivate this let me point out that Ted Olsen, George W. Bush's solicitor general (whose job is to protect the President from lawsuites) falsely claimed to have received two phone calls from his wife, Barbara Olsen, on September, an event which first Dr. A. K. Dewdney and then many others have established to be impossible. The loss of a White House figures wife was perfect for diverting any suspicion from the White House (as was the attack on the Pentagon
Explosive dick eastman exposes victoria ashley and other fake 9-11 truthers
1. Explosive: Dick Eastman exposes Victoria Ashley and other
fake 9/11 truthers What Kind of Girl Disagrees with Dick Eastman?
Victoria Ashley and her book I just found a four-year-old
"debunking" critique of my evidence-derived conclusion that the
Boeing witnesses say flying towards the Pentagon actually flew over
the Pentagon while planted bombs went off and a much smaller
single-engine plane or missle (AGMs and cruise/drone) struck below.
The critique was written in August of 2009 by Victoria Ashley,
shown below. As always not one 9-11 "truther" bothered to inform me
that this critique existed. Victoria Ashely is one of a group of
"false opposition", cover-up agents like Jim Fetzer and Alex Jones
who obstruct justice to protect international organized crime that
has gotten control of the American state apparatus and is
conducting unconventional "Sun-tse" warfare against the United
States with infiltration, sabotage and provocateur operations like
9-11. Who were the passengers of 9-11? Many of them appear to have
been agents with false identities whose identities, but not their
lives, were terminated with the 9-11 operation. Before I rebut
Victoria Ashley here is an article exposing some famous disinfo
artists who were both reported "victims" of 9-11 and who have have
become Truthers who have conspicuously been gatekeepers and
promoters of bogus theories and evidence. Just to motivate this let
me point out that Ted Olsen, George W. Bush's solicitor general
(whose job is to protect the President from lawsuites) falsely
claimed to have received two phone calls from his wife, Barbara
Olsen, on September, an event which first Dr. A. K. Dewdney and
then many others have established to be impossible. The loss of a
White House figures wife was perfect for diverting any suspicion
from the White House (as was the attack on the Pentagon
2. where key 9-11 conspirators Paul Wolfowitz, Dov Zakheim,
Richard Perle, Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld and others had
offices, but not on the west side of the Pentagon that was
attacked. And now it has been remarked how very much Ted Olsen's
new wife resembles Barbara Olsen who allegedly was killed on Flight
77 which it is claimed upon known falsified evidence to havehit the
Pentagon. Now read this: THE "9/11 TRUTHERS" WHO ARE 9-11 "VICSIM"
LOOK-ALIKES Have prominent "truthers" lent their faces to some
"victims" in the 9/11 Memorials? This post is to summarize a
hypothesis which has emerged due to a series of empirical
observations - featuring some bizarre 'coincidental' aspects. As
crazy as this may sound (but 9/11 WAS undoubtedly a crazy affair),
we may find some victims in the 9/11 memorials which share
remarkable facial AND name analogies with some well-known
characters at the forefront of the so-called "Truth Movement". (all
of them being notorious ...ehrm... money- makers.) LUKASZ MILEWSKI
(2001?) versus LUKASZ RUD(k)OWSKI* (2009?) *Prison Planet spells
name without the "k"
3.
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/people/3664.html This
is what "MILE"means in Polish: "pleasantly" - "kindly" - "affably"
- "heartily" MILEWSKI - RUDOWSKI ....get it ? Anyhow, looks like
the Wearechange 'frontman' Lukasz is good at raising money...: Paul
Isaac(NY sentinel) wrote: "I did a search on the New York State
Court Unified Court System at (...) for Lukasz Rudkowski. Since
Lukasz was able to raise $5k for the legal defense fund; why does
he have a legal aide lawyer? What has he done with money he raised
for a lawyer? More mystery involving Lukasz and large amounts of
money." http://rfkin2008.wordpress.com/2008/08/ * * * "ROBERT T.
LANE" versus MANNY BADILLO
4.
http://photos.silive.com/advance/2009/09/911_victims_120.html Manny
(who allegedly lost his uncle on 9/11) is also good at ...uh...
raising money - in close complicity with his colleague Lukasz
Rudkowski:
5. "Heather LaMastro has started attacking 9/11 Victims Family
member Manny Badillo for being complicit in Luke Rudkowskis
embezzlement of funds promised to 9/11 first responders and for
Wearechange New Yorks operating costs. In past articles we have
shown you that other members of Wearechange New York have begun to
question where the money goes."
http://crotchshotradio.com/2010/12/17/who-was-complicit-in-luke-rudkowskis-
embezzlement/ * * * ALEXANDER Robert NAPIER
------------versus------------- ALEXANDER Emmerich JONES
http://www.septemberclues.info/terror/New%20York%20og%20Washington%2011.%20se
ptember%202001%207_files/1932-Ale.jpg Well...I trust we all know
just how good Alex Jones is at raising money - for himself * * *
"PAUL J. BATTAGLIA" versus WILLY RODRIGUEZ
http://voicesofseptember11.org/dev/memo ... 2756628371
6. (Just for speculative entertainment - since I'm such a
conspiracy nut - please note that 'Battaglia' comes from Latin
"battualia" (military exercises/fight/battle) while 'Rodriguez' -
of hispanic origin - means "famous ruler/"famed conqueror"/or
"famous power") Looks like Willy, the "9/11 rescue hero", is also a
master at the fine art of fundraising - for the victims families,
of course ! Here's someone leaving a most eloquent/intelligent
comment about him - on the WeAreChange.org website : Brian Good
says: December 28, 2010 at 12:54 pm Willie tells a great
inspirational storyliterally incredible! My favorite parts are the
22- story internal collapse that he alone witnessed, the $122
million he raised for the community that he alone counted, the
hundreds he saved by opening doors and letting people out that
nobody else seems to remember, and his single-handed rescues of
fifteen (15) persons who turned out to be his co-workers in the ABM
office who were in no danger and could rescue themselves just fine.
http://www.wearechange.org/?p=5320 The meaning of the surname
"Rodriguez" :
http://www.genealogyforum.com/messages/genbbs.cgi/New/29781 ...
/New/29781
7. Re: 9/11 MEMORIAL SCAMS by antipodean on February 16th,
2011, 9:17 am Here's a good one from the old forum.
http://z6.invisionfree.com/Reality_Shac ... &p=2141852 This one
was quite incestuous whereby the "vicsim's" mother Carol plays the
grieving mother demanding justice, whilst daughter Janice is a dead
ringer for 9/11 activist Victoria Ashley, who's expertise is
disinformation. In other words slag off anyone who's not a Jim
Fetzer-Morgan Reynold's plane hugger. Victoria Ashley
8. Carol Ashley with picture of her daughter 9/11 vicsim Janice
Ashley Janice Ashle Now back to Dick Eastman:
9. The only places where you can still find my Pentagon
analysis is on Rense.com (it is in five parts 1,2,3,4 and 5) In
fact the only way I can prove I was one of the early 9-11
investigators is the fact that David Ray Griffin featured my
analysis of the evidence and my conclusions in Pentagon chapter of
his first book on the false-flag frameup, 9-11 The New Pearl Harbor
- first edition. The old timers who conducted their own
investigations of my work and agreed with me me have all quit
trying to crash the gate and are even more less known than I am.
9-11 Highest Treason Substantiated
http://www.rense.com/general86/hight1.htm Conclusions drawn from
the evidence in the September 11, 2001 killings at the Pentagon and
this slapdash summary I put on Youtube last year: Dick Eastman -
Pentagon (53 minutes) - evidence sufficient
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-IXAe0UOYg Also you will note that
Victoria Ashley is one of the confirmed "no-planers" -- a name I
coined to describe the group that began with Rosalee Grable, Gerard
Holmgren and Dr. Morgan Reynolds (an economist who was at the White
House with Ted Olsen and Karl Rove, and who happens to have known
me when I was a graduate student in the doctoral program at Texas A
& M where Reynolds has taught since those days in the early
1980s. Morgan Reynolds, joined the Truth Movement directly from the
White House -- and instead of contacting me with his new- found
"Truther" convictions -- and he would know of me because of
Griffin's book -- he instead joined forces with the amazing
"no-planes'-hit-the-WTC-towers" movement which sprung up all of a
sudden and in no time had hundreds of followers, websites and a
vicious team of attack-dogs who want after "plane-huggers" like me.
Obviously the plan was to overthrow the finding that Flight 77 did
not crash into the Pentagon with the bogus, offensive and repelling
absurdity that no planes hit the wtc. Ashely like Reynolds joined
the no-planes-hit-the-WTC but she also found interest in writing a
debunk of my finding that the large plane people say flying towards
the Pentagon actually flew over the Pentagon at the moment a bomb
emitting a blinding flash and at least two flying objects struck
the building below. Here is Ashley's attack on the flyover thesis
-- which I say is fully established in the eyes of any intelligent
and impartial person who will look at the several indepenent chains
of evidence that I present which conclusively demonstrate the
no-flyover thesis. I should add that Ashley does not attack me --
but instead attacks several clowns who came in years after I drew
my conclusions -- and presented their own bogus theory of a
fly-over -- they supplied flesh-and-blood straw men for Victoria
Ashley to attack -- in every instance Ashley attacks my flyover
thesis on the basis of the bogus non-sequiters introduced by the
"Citizens Investigation Team" disinformation team and the bogus
"no-planer" ridden Pilot's For 9-11 Truth -- which exists purely to
crowd out my findings with their own intentionally weak arguments
rife with stupid theories that do not really follow from the
evidence but which do a wonderful job of turning people away from
looking further into flyover theory where they would discover the
real evidence (my evidence) that they have so effectively prevented
from spreading.
10. My findings have been rejected by every big name
investigator including most recently by Barbara Honegger. I am the
invisible 9-11 and inaudible investigator. If it were not for Jeff
Rense I would today be completely unknown in the "9-11 Truther
Community" as it has been created by Mike Ruppert, Carol Brouillet
and Dr. James Fetzer. At any rate here is the hatchet-job
straw-man-using, evidence-ignoring and argument-ignoring critique
of no-planer author Victoria Ashley, accusing me of "conning" the
9-11 truth movement. To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT's PentaCon
'Magic Show' Victoria Ashley: This essay examines the work of the
Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), a team of two people who claim to
prove that a complicated "magic show" occurred during the Pentagon
attack on 9/11/01, fooling all of the witnesses and surviving
victims of the event into believing that American Airlines Flight
77 (AA77) hit the Pentagon, when instead, it flew just over the
building, obscured by a simultaneous explosion, and then somehow
flew away, unnoticed by anyone in the area (the "flyover" theory).
CIT took their camcorders and went to Washington, DC, where they
interviewed a select group of Pentagon attack eye witnesses whom
they believe, indicate a different flightpath from the accepted
flightpath (the one described by a trail of damage leading up to
the building). These interviews, it is claimed, provide the primary
"evidence" for the flyover theory. Or so we are led to believe.
Dick Eastman: The fact that in 2003 I had addressed the very
question of why the plane was not noticed. First the explosion
occured exactly one mile from the north end of one of the runways
of Reagan National Airport, so that in 3.5 seconds the plane was
closer to the runway than it was to the crash point. Second I
pointed out the bright initial flash, not explained by an airplane
crash, a flash bright enough to have a camera flash-bulb effect on
the vision of observers with a view of the building. Third, I
pointed out
11. that observers tend to construct what is not there when
they are shown things contrary to their experience and
expectations. When you see a large plane approach the pentagon then
a bright flash and then, when you can see again, a big explosion
taking place, you tend to jump to the most reasonable conclusion,
the one that fits expectations. (How many had heard about planes
crashing into the WTC towers or had even seen the second crash
before getting in their cars. Also how many were planted witnesses
like Lincoln Liebner who claims he saw the plane crash from a
parking lot position and who just happens to be the man who
supposedly told Rumsfeld that a plane had crashed. There is lots on
Liebner that I have written about if anyone wants to know more.
Liebner was one of the few who had permission to enter the building
and bring out survivors. Firemen were not allowed to do this. Now
back to the Boeing flying over the Pentagon. I also presented the
fact in 2002 or 2003 that the very first report on the radio was of
a jetliner crashing into the freeway bridge over the Potomac
between the Pentagon to the northwest of the airport and the
airport southeast of the Pentagon. Also the fire station Reagan
National first got a report of a plane crashing on the north field.
And certainly the attention grabber of the explosion and fire and
he proximity to the airport where low flying planes are an every
minute occurance and the fact that most eyes and thoughts in the
vacinity were on the two airliner crashes in New York. Finally, we
have the fact that there were obvious planted participants in the
crime who were insisting that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon
even though a few saw a plane that did not crash and these were
talked down and crowded out by the very pushy witnesses who did. I
have studied all of the witness statements -- and Jim Hoffman has
never brought is attempt to discredit my findings to me -- and he
has never responded to any of my invitations to talk it over with
him. Finally, some witnesses to the Pentagon crash died shortly
afterwards. Some were taken away for questioning -- and
intimidation? At any rate, Ashley's main contention that follows
that what she calls "the elephant in the room" -- that no one saw
the plane after it flew over and that no investigator has addressed
it is totally false. All that can be said is that none of the
investigators that Victoria Ashley chose to argue with had answered
those questions -- which is true -- but why did she ignore
examining what the original guy said. Remember, the Citizens
Investigation Committee came years after I had laid out the entire
thesis, after I had established from witnesses that the big plane
flew north the Citgo gas station and thus well north of the first
highway light pole that was brought down by the original killer
object. Victoria Ashley: The general conclusion that "no plane" or
"no Boeing" could have hit the Pentagon -- widely accepted by
skeptics of the official version of events of the Pentagon attack,
even as it is generally not carefully examined -- is based on a
series of erroneous physical evidence claims. The details of these
common errors made by investigators of the Pentagon attack are not
the purpose of this essay, but have already been described in What
the Physical Evidence Shows.
12. The purpose of this essay is to critically examine the
claims, methods and themes employed by CIT in their attempts to
make the case for the flyover theory. This essay will show that
CIT's claims about what happened in the Pentagon attack on 9/11/01
are without a meaningful scientific process and are reliant on
biased interpretations of broad statements made by less than 20
witnesses to the attack, 8 years after the event. The witness
recordings made by CIT are sometimes muddled, are significantly
edited, and at times appear to have almost nothing to do with what
CIT interprets from them, leaving many video viewers and forum
readers, told they would see "proofs", frustrated and perplexed
about what is going on. Dick Eastman: The original claim was made
by me and it was based on photographic evidence of the damge
imprint, the Pentagon security camera pictures released in March of
2002. It takes account of the exact position of downed light poles,
the location of cars and buildings such as the Citgo gas station,
the Naval Annex Complex, the Sheraton Hotel. Sgt Lagasse was at the
gas station when he saw the plane fly north of him, headed east
towards the west wall of the Pentagon. This finding I corroborated
by the testimony of others including Steve Riskus whose position is
exactly known because he stopped his car and took pictures as soon
as he exited. While Ron Harvey deliberately lied and said that
Riskus saw the Boeing take down poles, Riskus in a letter denies
that. He says he did not seen the downed pole in the highway until
he got into his car and had driven further south. And that is the
point. A plane of that mass and that velocity if it passed north of
the gas station that was already that close to the Pentagon could
not possibly have detoured off path to hit the fist lampost that
was knocked down south of the gas station. The positon of the pole
(the one that hit the Taxi driven by Mr. England)is well
established by many photos and maps - the south corner of the
overpass southwest of the crash point -- as shown in many pictures
taken by witnesses that I have always included in my presentations
of evidence. Victoria Ashley ignores all of that. And whom does she
choose to argue with on this point -- no one but the CIT gang --
who took my evidence and concocted a completely impossible thesis
that there was no missile and that the poles were brought down not
buy a plane but by contrivance, that the downed poles were
disinformation props. And THAT is the contrived false-theory that
Victoria Ashely choses to refute rather than the real data and the
real conclusion that are forced by the photos and witness
satements. To leave my lines of evidence and the inescapable
conclusion to be drawn from them shows that Victoria Ashley is not
really after the truth, but is merely out to discredit any idea
that the Boeing flew over the Pentagon because that is what
happened and because what happened is what Ashley and the people
behind her do not want to become widely known and accpeted.
13. Victoria Ashley: At the heart of it, what CIT has really
created from the witness accounts is an elaborate historical
fictional drama focused around the narrow theme of witnesses
appearing to describe a different flightpath for the plane that
day. Without any viable corroborating evidence for the claim that
the plane never hit, but instead flew over the building, the
filmmakers instead offer up a fascinating premise: "Everything was
faked!" So what began as an innocent sounding exploration of
discrepancies in eye witness testimony, moves on to "proofs" of how
the existing damage incurred during the attack could not have
happened from the impact of a large Boeing. A summary of the many
"it was faked" claims indicates a somewhat daunting if not entirely
ridiculous premise for the "flyover": 1. Lamp posts downed by plane
impact: faked 2. Generator damage by engine impact: faked 3. Boeing
parts on the ground and inside the building: faked 4. Impact hole
cutout in the Pentagon matching a 757-sized jetliner: faked 5.
Recovered DNA identifying Flight 77 passengers and crew: faked 6.
Recovered victim personal effects provided to family members: faked
7. All witnesses to the plane impact: plants or confused about what
they saw Dick Eastman: Long before Ashley wrote her article I had
argued very stongly and emphatically that each of the CIT
arguements that Victoria Ashley lists above were indeed false. I
stated that the gash cut in the top of the generator truck and the
downed fence along the "light pole path" had to have been caused by
the real killer jet (a cruise missile, or a drone fighter plane
like the F-16 as the big plane flew to the North. Now as for the
damage imprint in the side of the building I pointed out that the
hold at column 14 was indeed wide enough to accomodate the fuselage
of a Boeing 757 hitting at that location -- but I also pointed out,
using many photos that are no longer shown much -- but you can see
them at the Rense page mentioned above -- showing that where the
starboard engine would have had to have hit, there is a column
still partially standing -- that no
14. engine went through there -- but even more conclusive and
beyond question is the fact that the damage to the wall includes a
big hole on the second floor at column 19 (far south of where the
fuselage and engines would have had to have hit) a hole made
several seconds after the original crash event. It is impossible
that the wing tip could have made that hole. It had to have beem
made by an air-to-ground missile -- moving too fast and too low to
be seen by anyone. Many photos show this otherwise inexplicable
hole. And this is the reason why 20 minutes after the crash event
the Pentagon Wall suddenly collapsed -- and in the same minute that
firemen and rescuers were ordered to back away from the crash
vicinity of the west wall because, they were told, "another plane
was reported approaching!!! This was well documented at the time by
both mainstream media and witness accounts. Victoria Ashley is
totally wrong when she implies that the imprint of the event left
on the wall was a "cutout matching Flight 77". A much better
explanation is that a single engine flying object hit at column 14,
that bombs, including a flash device, and an air-tro-ground missle
where involved. Their was a trailer parked in front of the Pentagon
exactly at column 14. This could have contained the flash bomb and
it could have included a homing device, although a homind device
would not be necessary with other remote- control guidance
available to a conspiracy that controlled the Pentagon in involved
Mossad. As for the DNA identification, years ago I pointed out that
when ever organized crime take over a city the first person they
replace is the coroner and the forensic teams -- so that they will
be able to get away with murder. You will notice all of the
political suicides pronounced by coroners who reach that
conclusions under the most improbable circumstances. A fake DNA
report is very easy to produce when a conspiracy that has taken
over Washington, that involves the conquest of many nations and
trillions of dollars is at stake. Victoria Ashley is not that
naive, obviously. Victoria Ashley: And at this point, the doubts
are just beginning. Given the complexity of such fakery and sleight
of hand, most who attempt to confirm the full story end up at one
of several dead ends in the scenario. The claim that so much
evidence at the scene of the Pentagon was staged in advance, so
precisely and amidst hundreds of people in all directions, simply
to make it appear that the plane which approached the building had
actually impacted it, strains credulity and logic. Because as most
readers and viewers quickly surmise, far easier than all of the
elaborate fakery, would have been to simply ram a plane into the
building, just as was done in NYC. That would be one part of the
official story. While CIT claims that anyone who believes the plane
hit the building is endorsing the official story, in reality, there
is a overwhelming case for insider involvement in the Pentagon
attack consistent with the impact of Flight 77.
15. Dick Eastman: All espionage agencies of big governments and
the staffs of big organized crime that controls governments and
corporations have groups capable of performing so-called
"black-ops" which use not only every trick of visual deception but
also the behavioral technology (for example anchoring, differential
reinforcement, and conditioning tricks that distort the
interpretation and reporting of what is seen. Black Ops work -- and
people don't know that such technologys exist and that they do work
-- and so they are vulnerable. Once again, is Vicoria Ashley that
naive and ill informed. My guess would be that she is not. Victoria
Ashley: Thus, it is important to have a look at another
possibility, another reality, in which the "no Boeing impact"
claims had never happened in the first place, and instead -- rather
than endless internal sqabbles of what that hit the Pentagon and
easy media attacks about "conspiracy theorists" who think the plane
never hit and the passengers were dumped into the ocean -- the many
other glaring questions, anomalies and absurdities of the Pentagon
attack story, essentially ignored by media and the 9/11 Commission,
had had even a fraction of as much energy devoted to them as "no
Boeing impact" claims. What is that story, and what are those
questions? What CIT and many other no-Boeing-impact focused efforts
have created is essentially a historical vacuum in which readers
and viewers are disconnected from the original larger context of
the attack and its aftermath, in favor of the hyped soap opera
mystery in which an elderly cab driver's apparent role in the
attack is central, rather than officials in Bush Administration who
were in charge that day.
16. Dick Eastman:Here is a case where one side or the other is
guilty of laying a smoke screen of false argument to throw off
those seeking the truth. Certainly the Citizens Investigation Team
has done that, but what about Victoria Aslely or Dick Eastman?
Which of us is "muddying the waters" with disinformation? Remember,
we who first presented the thesis that no Boeing hit the Pentagon
(Key Dewdney and myself for example) presented the no-plane
evidence years before the CIT group showed up merely presenting
further confirmation of evidence and witnesses establishing the
north-of gas station path of the big plane that flew over the
Pentagon -- and I did so without any of the added bogus theory
garbage injected by CIT. There has been no vaccuum. I have always
since early 2002 been trying to put out exactly the evidence and
implciations of that evidence that I am putting out now. Alex
Jones, Carol Brouillet, Mike Ruppert, and many others -- including
Jim Hoffman who suddenly and for no good reason backed away from my
conclusions afterwards showing much less familiarity and honesty
with my position than he showed when he was with me. At any rate --
I was first -- I was kept out at the gate as were a lot of other
good men who eventually folded up and went back to their lives. I
never gave up. The CIT group and Morgan Reynolds leaving the White
House to join the no-planes-hit-the-WTC operatives are all black
ops designed to bury or otherwise distract from the many conclusive
lines of evidence that Eastman, Dewdney, Richard Stanley, Jerry
Russell, Peter Wakefiled Sault, and others. The CIT group -- like
the no-planers (at the WTC) and Pilots for 9-11 Truth are all
distractions, phony investigators out their to mislead and to lead
away for those trying to get out the real and conclusive evidence
of the deceptive false-flag attack on the Pentagon. And as for
discrediting Taxi driver and witness Steve England, I have accepted
his story. Mark Bilk, another of the real investigators, phoned
England and asked him about what he saw. England said he saw the
plane but not the crash. He said that he wondered whether the plane
had flown over the Pentagon. Englands story fits my analysis and
was taken into account when drawing conclusions. It was the CIT
group who came, confirmed by finding of planes passing north of the
gas station (interviewing the same witness I had spoken with and
corresponded with years before -- Sgt Lagasse) and then proceeded
to put out this propostrous thesis that England was lying, that the
poles were planted there etc. Yet Victoria Ashley -- ignoring the
real Pentagon findings for all those years -- waits until CIT comes
out with their bogus show-stealing absurd theories forgetting all
about the investigator who fist uncovered the facts and who first
drew the right and sensible conclusion. Only after CIT entered the
scene does Victoria Ashley show up to "disprove the flyover" using
only CIT to argue from. She mentions my name below but none of my
findings and nothing about my conclusion which are so different
from the straw man arguments so conveniently provided by Citizens
Investigation Team.
17. Victoria Ashley: According to the official story, at about
9:37 AM, American Airlines Flight 77 flew toward the western face
of the Pentagon and exploded as it smashed through the the facade,
primarily on the first floor. The jetliner approached the capital
from the northwest and executed a 320-degree descending spiral,
losing seven thousand feet before leveling out at nearly tree-top
height as it made its final approach to the Pentagon to hit the
section of the building containing mostly unoccupied offices under
renovation. The crash damaged the building, caused a partial
collapse, and ignited a large fire which took days to completely
extinguish. All 64 people on the airliner and 125 Pentagon workers
were killed (55 military personnel and 70 civilians) and over 150
were treated for injuries at local hospitals. The medical
examiner's office initially identified remains belonging to 179 of
the victims, but in November of 2001, using DNA analysis, a team of
more than 50 forensic specialists identified 184 of the 189 killed.
Dozens of people witnessed the approach and or crash of AA77,
including drivers on Washington Boulevard, Interstate 395, and
Columbia Pike, as well as others located in Pentagon City and
Crystal City. News sources began reporting on the incident within
minutes. Dick Eastman: That is accurate. Next Ashley goes on to
describe all of the facts she says that "not the Boeing" and "the
flyover" findings somehow interfere with. Bu these are all things
that I reported and re-reported every day, week afte week and month
after month in thousands of postings to usenet and yahoogroups -
with a few of them making it to Rense. No one promoted these hard
facts more than I did. Victoria Ashley: However, almost entirely
ignored by news sources, or whitewashed in official reports, have
been these persistent questions: How was it possible that the
Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks
began?
18. Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just
over 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged
with defending the skies above the nation's capital? 1. Why did
F-16s fail to protect Washington on 9/11? Was the Langley emergency
response sabotaged? 2. Why did Flight 77 hit a part of the building
opposite from the high command and mostly empty and under
renovation, with majority of victims being civilian accountants? 3.
Why were Pentagon workers not evacuated or warned that Flight 77
was approaching, despite those in the bunker tracking the attack
plane as it closed the final 50 miles to the Pentagon? 4. How could
Flight 77 have been piloted through its extreme aerobatic final
maneuvers by Hani Hanjour, a failed Cessna pilot who had never
flown a jet? 5. Why did the flight instructor who certified Hani
Hanjour, a former Israeli paratrooper, disappear a few days after
his 9/11 Commission interview? 6. Why was a war game drill used to
vacate the National Reconnaissance Office for the duration of the
attack? 7. How was a C-130 pilot able to intercept the plane
incoming to the Pentagon while NORAD was not? 8. Did the Pentagon,
the nerve center of the US military, really have no missile or
anti-aircraft defenses? 9. What were Vice-president Cheney's orders
when Norman Mineta described him speaking to a young man in the
presidential bunker as the plane approached, saying, "Of course the
orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?" Dick
Eastman: All of these point to a job with the complicity of people
in the highest postions of the Bush administration as well as
Israel and dual- citizenship American Jews like Zakheim, Perle,
Libner, Feith, Wolfowitz, Kissinger and many others. All of the
above point to a black op. But nothing points to and establishes a
black op more than the fact that to do all that they wanted they
needed a precision attack with precison air to ground missiles,
with bombs planted in specific places to kill all of the people
that it was intended by killed. THe photos of the Pentagon wall
before it was collapsed (20 minutes after the impact event) prive
an air-to-ground missile. That imprint that disproves the official
story -- contrary to Ashley's claim of a cookie cutter-like imprint
of a Boeing 757. So clearly that the no-planes hit the wtc, the CIT
and perhaps (probably) Victory Ashley's contributions as well and
all of the gatekeeping by Brouillet Ruppert, John Judge and others
had to be fielded. Again, all of the facts Ashley presents I was
puting out
19. nearly every day and certainly many times a week years
before she appears on the scene to attack my conclusions by arguing
against the staw-man mockery of my position represented by the CIT
investigators. (Although it is my opinion that Aldo Marquis was
honest in all this, and simply used by the real CIT fraudsters who
ran the CIT show. Victoria Ashley: It isn't hard to see how these
points have been easily eclipsed by the mystery and intrigue of the
"no-Boeing-impact" scenarios, which read as though scripted from
the pages of a best-selling fictional Tom Clancy novel: Breathless
cherry-picked recorded excerpts of eyewitness accounts suggesting
missiles, drones and flyovers, slick video and flash presentations
depicting the impossibility of the engine parts and debris being
that of a Boeing, government officials in dark suits rushing around
to confiscate everything they could carry off the lawn just moments
after the attack, planes flying above and "seeding" the area with
fake plane crash debris, screaming headlines about the "virtual
confession" of a mild mannered witness who is "in on it" . . .
without really knowing he is . . . This, we are told, was all part
of the "magic show" necessary to confuse and deceive everyone for
miles around the Pentagon to achieve the ultimate "It was all
faked!" scenario. Dick Eastman: I have never read a Tom Clancy
novel. My taste is for non-fiction. I am not part of any
organization. I am not a paid writer -- is Victoria Ashley? Who
helped her dig up all of this accurate information that is so hard
to find these days without ever finding my thesis in the woodpile?
She is arguing like a prosecutor who has no case -- like Hamilton
Berger in a Perry Mason TV episode. Victoria Ashley: Such enticing
best-selling hype would overshadow the comparably mundane points
listed above and essentially redirect those interested in what
20. happened at the Pentagon into a house of mirrors and
labyrinth of dead ends. Absurdities of endless scenarios of fakery
arise, capped by the famous "conspiracy theorist" response to every
reporter's favorite question: Dick Eastman: She associates the
argument she wants to discredit with being like sensational
fiction. May I remind her we are talking about 9-11 and the
Pentagon which was hit after the two tallest skyscrapers in New
York had been hit by planes. Whatever method was used, it is going
to sound absurd from the standpoint of everyday occurances. But one
of the absurd possibilies is what actaully happened. I am not
introducing any black-op that is not known to be in the
armamentarium of Israeli, the CIA and organized crime controlled
corporations... Victoria Ashley: The claims of fakery are
particularly useful to lure those who have decided that AA77 could
not have hit the building but do not have the time to closely
examine the evidence -- because when everything is fake, anything
becomes possible. Importantly, any "no Boeing" operation would have
been left highly vulnerable to exposure by even a single camcorder
or photograph of the missile, military jet, A-3 Skywarrior, Global
Hawk, etc. But with the flyover claim, there are the additional
vulnerabilities of someone seeing the plane flying away or the
lampposts toppling without being hit, among all of the other
allegedly staged fakery at scene. Further, issues like the DNA
being falsified, the passengers being disposed of, the radar data
being tampered with, etc., begins to feed into the "vast
conspiracy" debunker claims -- that there would have been no way to
hide a conspiracy consciously involving hundreds or more --
repeatedly brought forth to make the "conspiracy theories" appear
impossible. Finally, this essay is not the production of one
person, but includes the contributions by many, through numerous
quotes and excerpts from a variety of forums and essays on the Web
where many individuals have debated what happened at the Pentagon
during the attack of 9/11/01. Because the work of CIT is so
voluminous - some conclude that they must work full-time on it --
any one individual cannot adequately respond to so many detailed
points.
21. Researcher 'Arabesque' has come closest to providing the
most comprehensive critiques, and continues to. But for that work
he has been repeatedly labeled as an "agent", has been told, "we
are coming for you", and other such offenses. Responses like these
are not uncommon when one attempts to engage in coherent critique
and debate over CIT's work. Hence, all of us who learn anything
from this essay -- and myself in the writing of it -- are indebted
to the many activists and researchers who took the time to examine
the claims critically and to engage in what often amounted to a
vicious online battle. While the Citizen Investigation Team appears
to be a "grassroots" team, it actually consists of Aldo Marquis and
Craig Ranke and is the "Citizen Investigation Team LLC". Indeed,
the formation of a limited liability corporation would seem to be
necessary given the methods engaged in by CIT of recording
individuals without their knowledge and reframing witness
statements to fit a conclusion opposite to what they believe
themselves to be describing. The obvious outcome of claiming that
witnesses are proving a point which they themselves object to, is
shown in a communication from a witness and Pentagon Police Sgt.
William Lagasse, who wrote to a website which published claims he
had described a flyover (before CIT made the same claims) in 2003:
Eastman: Ashley overlooks the fact that those who planned this
particular false-flag mass-murder had to cover every contingency,
and they had the means of doing so. They found the one video camera
among very man that captured the killer object only when it was
just hidden by a pass-reader box in the driveway in the foregound
of the attack. But even with that investigators including myself
were able to determine that the plane shown was too short by one
half to have been the Boeing. The tail fin was showing and the size
of it dictated that if the plane was a 575 the fuselage would have
been exposed sticking out from behind the pass reader box. See
either my presentation on Rense or my own Youtube linked above to
see what I am talking about. This is evidnece that CIT ignored. And
since CIT ignored it, Victoria Ashley assumed she could get away
with ignoring it too. Victoria Ashley: (quoting Sgt Lagasse):
22. I live with what I saw everyday of my life, It has taken a
long time to deal with the images, screams and anger I felt that
day, to be honest your website angered me to the point I wanted to
just curse and rant and rave but I decided this would be much more
helpful in quelling misconceptions. The Statements of Sgt. William
Lagasse AFPN; June 24, 2003 http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/ Dick
Eastman: When APFN forwarded a letter to him from Lagasse I
immediately put out the letter and contacted Lagasse by email. I
asked him for a detailed account of what he saw, where he say it
and from what angle. He insisted of course that the plane struck
the Pentagon. That was understandable. But in three letters and two
or three phone calls I definitely established that Lagasse saw the
starbord side of the plane (on the pilot's right when he is seated
in the plane) -- I made sure that Lagasse and I agreed on which
side was starboard and which side was port - we did. He stated that
the plane flew north of him. He assumed the crash was caused by the
plane he saw -- we both understood that from the beginning. I never
tried to change his mind. I only wanted the facts. Years later the
Citizens Investigation Team -- checked up on my witness and my
conclusion. The got Lagasse's account that the plane passed north
of the Citgo station -- and his surprise at learing that the first
pole downed was south of the station. It is what Lagasse saw, not
what he thought happened, that matters. And that is what I used. My
approach to witnesses was much more careful, systematic and yes,
scientific, that CIT. Lagasse, despite what he may think happened
has confirmed the flyover by what he says he saw -- and by what
other witnesses that I did not know about confirmed -- including
another military policeman and a gas station attendant. My account
is the only one that reconciles what most witnesses reported with
the story of physical events told by wreckage (light poles, fence,
generator trailor etc.) -- and Victoria Ashley dismisses my
conclusions without ever investigating the specific case I built
from several independent and conclusive lines of evidence. Victoria
Ashley: Several themes emerge when one examines the dialog, work
and methods of CIT as they attempt to protect and advocate the
flyover theory -- erasing history, claiming an omniscient viewpoint
of reality, and using excessive detail and overwhelming amounts of
information.
23. In order to establish their paradigm, CIT must erase any
history that contradicts it. The best example of this is the
central method of their work, in which their personal interviews of
witnesses to the attack are implied to uncover a "real" story
beneath the myth, somehow missed by everyone before them. This
automatically ejects the entire history of existing eyewitness
accounts as invalid and unreliable. Indeed CIT even claims that
statements by all previous witnesses are not to be considered. In
films like the 'Pentagon Attack Cab Driver Lloyde England's Virtual
Confession', only witnesses whom CIT has interviewed are ever
mentioned and are referred to as "the witnesses," as though no
other witness accounts exist. Those new to analysis of the Pentagon
attack might automatically assume that all other witnesses must not
be worthy of examining. The idea that CIT has an omniscient
viewpoint in which they possess the ability to read minds and infer
thoughts which others cannot, is common throughout the work and
often serves as a primary basis for their claims. Other descriptors
for these abilities would be ESP, the use of a Crystal Ball, and
Mind Reading. For example, their interpretations of a series of
broad statements by the famous and unfortunate cab driver, now
elderly, whose car was impaled with a lamp post during the attack,
are presented by CIT as a clandestine "virtual confession" to being
an accomplice in the Pentagon attack. Along these lines, all
evidence that does not agree with the flyoveris also labelled as
"fake" -- as though CIT has special knowledge that a video, witness
viewpoint, or other evidence was secretly manipulated on purpose
and so in effect, does not exist. Dick Eastman: I am the orignator
of the flyover thesis. All CIT did was to confirm my findings with
new witnesses and to throw in the stink bomb of their own bogus
theory that does indeed "erase hisory, claim omnicient viewpoint
and use excessive detail and overwhelming information. I did not
erase history -- I brought together all of the photo evidence and
the witness evidence and reconciled them. Then why did Victoria
Ashley choose to base her "debunking" of the thesis that the Plane
people saw did not crash at the Pentagon when all of the evidence
we have points only to the fact that it did not. Note that Victoria
Ashley is not averse to throwing out the historical record of the
evidence and investigator findings at the Pentagon. For example, I
established that the piece of plane photographed on the lawn north
of the crash (portside of whatever crossed the lawn to impact the
building at column 14) I established that that piece of 575 with
some fo the letter "n" from "American" on it came from the starbord
side of an Am Boeing 757 and not that port and I established, as
all pictures of smoke movements confirm, that the wind was blowing
stongly from the northwest that morning -- so the piece of 757
debris, if it had come from a crashing 757 could never have gotten
to that spot. The piece was planted -- probably dropped by the
C-
24. 130 that flew directly over the crash site just 30 seconds
after the crash (the C-130 then banked to the left and flew to
Shanksville!) I do not take an omnicient viewpoint -- which is a
literary term. What I took was the viewpoint of science -- the
objective viewpoint, based on events that can be recorded,
statements that were uttered or later writen. The only confidence
in conclusions I ever exhibited was in the facts and logical steps
drawing implications from those facts, facts which fit my
explanation but refute the official story and the CIT story. People
at the Pentagon were mudurdered with missiles, planted bombs and
possibly gun fire by black-op commando teams (Lincoln Liebner
likely part of these) -- that is what the evidence shows. The
evidence and witness accounts together refute the stories of Flight
77 hitting the building or of the plane not being hit by missiles
and a drone single-engine jetbut only by planted bombs as CIT
claims. And as for CIT presenting an avelanch of detail -- this
criticsim is true of CIT. But not of me. I cut through the
extraneous, narrowing the case down to verified chains of evidence
that establish a specific conclusion, or rather that establish that
what the offical story says happened did not happen. And that
things happened that the official story cannot explain -- such as
the pice of debris on the wrong side and upwind of the crash site,
like the hole made on the second floor too far south to have been
cause even by the starboard wingtip and the others. See my youtube
or the five page presentation on Rense linked above. Victoria
Ashley: Although CIT claims to "prove" their claims, their methods
are not scientific nor are their claims proven in any sense of the
word. The scientific method involves the proposal of a hypothesis,
testing of the hypothesis and documentation of the process in order
for independent bodies to replicate and evaluate the investigation.
What CIT has proposed is a hypothesis, but only the appearance of
testing and evaluation has occurred. Without a scientific basis,
the project is not an investigation, but rather, is a series of
melodramatic theater pieces about a speculative claim that AA77
flew away from the building and no one noticed. Interviewing
witnesses closely in order to understand criminal actions or events
can be a crucial instrument in exposing a cover-up or confusing
event. However, the method used to investigate the witness
statements must utilize the scientific method in order to be
considered viable. An interesting example of manipulation of
eyewitness accounts for the purpose of forcing a desired hypothesis
about an event can be seen in the investigation into the crash of
TWA Flight 800 in 1996:
25. Dick Eastman: Victoria Ashley is right about CIT. They
really presented nothing to discredit the basic finding that a
flying object struck the Pentagon from along the debris path. But
until CIT no investigator, and I knew them all back then, was
claiming that the plane did not knock down the lamp posts. None
were claiming that nothing hit the pentagon from the air. The
flyover is proven by the fact that all of the damage is explained
by whatever hit the first light pole and by whatever struck the
building on the second floor south of pillar 19. No follow this
next sentence carefully. Having established that the wall was
struck by a flying object (missile or drone single-engine jet)
coming from the southwest that first struck the lamp-post and
having established that the big plane in American Airlines Livery
that flew over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo gas station
was not on a path where it was possible for it to have struck that
light pole -- we are forced to assume that the plane went over the
building. It could not have done anything else. Furthermore we have
-- contrary to Victoria Ashley's assertion to the contrary, the
first radio report of a crash on the freeway bridge between the
Pentagon and the airport runway (exactly one mile from the "crash"
event) and the report of a crash on the north end of the field - to
indicate that people might have seen a plane banking sharply near
the bridge -- although for reasons given above (in three and a half
seconds from passing ov er the target point the Boeing would have
been closer to the airport than to the Pentagon -- where it could
have blended in with air traffic and landed or perhaps made an
immediate landing -- since 72 Israeli's with top security passes
had the run of the tower and all installations at that time. (There
is so much more to this story than I am reporting here -- but as
ever my goal has always been to find a few irrefutable lines of
evidnece and show them to the public -- which is exactly why Jim
Fetzer and the No-Planes, why CIT, and why Victoria Ashley are
attacking my findings and why all of the big names with all of the
money and organization behind them -- early on Ruppert and
Brouillet -- have been adament that I was never to be invited to
any of the Truther conferences they sponsored. I also ran up
against people who tried to debunk me for the official story side
-- Ron Harvey and some female whose name I foget -- but Harvey lied
about Riskus seeing poles being hit and the chick lied about the
Boeing being able to fly over the Annex, veer and hit the first
lamp post and then turn back and hit the wall at column 14 all
going at nearly 500 mph as claimed. I have not scratched the
surface of the occasions where planted witnesses have been
discovered. Many of the witnesses worked for USA today. Many were
in publishing. And some reported seeing things that simply were not
so. Like one editor who reported seeing Flight 77 diving at an
unrecoverable angle -- but then, as I pointed out in 2002, how
could the plane have ended up travelling across the lawn three feet
above the ground and hitting and entering the building all on the
first and second floors so cleanly. After all irrecoverabel
26. means irrecoverable. I have gone over all of the witness
accounts of the time. Accepting most as honest and others as bogus
and impossible. Victoria Ashley: CIT asserts that at least 4
witnesses are "plants" but provides no hard evidence to establish
such a claim except to find inconsistencies in their reports, not
unlike the previous claims of Gerard Holmgren, Dick Eastman, and
other Pentagon researchers. None of these researchers seem to be
aware that there are nearly always inconsistencies within and
between eyewitness reports of any crime or major event.
Professional investigators know to take into account the nature and
proportion of the inconsistencies before declaring to themselves --
much less anyone else -- that a witness lied. And more importantly,
even if the planners of the attack had managed to place dozens of
witnesses on the ground -- this being only a fraction of the over
200 witnesses found online describing the incident -- they could
not have controlled every person for miles around without
blockading the area and evacuating all people for miles, which
would have been known to people in the area and the news stations.
This would involve more than a mile of I-395, a six-lane highway
flanked by multiple access roads, as well as the four- to six-lane
state routes 27 and 110. Pentagon City, which includes several
highrise apartments and hotels, would also have had to have been
evacuated, since many of its rooms had a full view of the
Pentagon's airspace. If a flyover had occurred, a single witness
reporting it or just one photograph or video recording it would
risk exposing the entire fraud. Thus it can be seen that the role
of the interviewee, and the behavior of those in control of the raw
data, are as critically important as the witnesses being
interviewed. If the person conducting the interview has a
particular viewpoint on what should have happened and uses leading
questions or rephrasing of the witnesses' responses, then the
objectivity of the testimony is lost. Dick Eastman: I am very well
aware of the impressionability and inaccuracies of witnesses in any
unexpected event such as a car accident. I have a post- graduate
degree in experimental psychology, I was invited to study in the
field by Robert Hernstein at Harvard (but I chose a Ph.D. program
in economics ant Texas A & M instead; I have met B. F. Skinner
and my masters degree in psychology was earned under Jack
27. Michael of Western Michigan, the behaviorist that Skinner
names is the heir to his tradition in the psychology of
conditioning and learning. I have written about how the Pentagon
attack was likely designed using the principles of Amos Tvarsky and
other Israeli psychologists who employ the principle of "anchoring"
which has incredible power to control people's reporting and
assessing of what they see or what they hear by controlling the
criteria by which in their thinking they made to assess or evaluate
what they have seen or "remember." These considerations have been
taken into account by me from the beginning. My argument for the
prosecution is simple: The damage path indicates that the object
that struck the building came from a more southeasterly direction
to the target, while the witnesses who say the plane "directly over
the Naval Annex" and direcly over grass of Arlington Cemetary and
north of the gas station -- all consistent with each other --
establish that the plane could not have been the object that
penetrated at column 14 on the outside (E- ring) or that parts of
which exited from a hole in the innermost wall of c-ring -- a
straight line back from the location of thefirst light pole. Since
the big plane was seen and it is not the plane or missile that hit
the various objects along the debris path (poles, generator truck,
fence,outer and inner holes in walls) then we are forced to
conclude that the plane flew over the Pentagon and got lost in the
confusion -- and checking all information we find that this would
have been easy to do with a busy airport just a mile from the
crash, and with flash power to blind observers of the crash for
just about as much time as it would take the plane to become nearer
to the airport than to the target point on the Pentagon wall. And
yes, this is exactly the kind of operation that Israelis pride
themselves on and that black operations teams are created to
effect. Victoria Ashley: The "flyover" theory of the Pentagon
attack implicitly advocated by CIT -- essentially postulating that
a "magic show" involving explosions and, perhaps, some other plane
hitting the building, caused every witness to believe the
commercial jet had hit the building when it had actually flown over
the building and away somewhere . . . and no one noticed -- was
first introduced by Richard Eastman in 2003 and later revived by
Russell/Stanley in 2004 with "The Five-Sided Fantasy Island". Jim
Hoffman describes Richard Eastman's theory on 9-11 Research:
28. Dick Eastman: Notice how Ashley references me as Richard
Eastman. If you googel "Richard Eastman" you will find nothing
about me or my Pentagon account. Why did she do that? I have never
referred to myself as "Richard Eastman" in any of my writing on
this subject or on any other subject from muy introduction the
topic to the end. Clearly this is a girl who does not want anyone
checking her facts by comparing her claims with the actual writings
of those whose findings she is attacking. Another think, my flyover
thesis dates from 2002. As soon as I learned of the line of downed
light poles from the "debunker" assigned to me, Ron Harvey. Before
I had been arguing that no plane was possible because witnesses
were claiming that the plane came in more directly from the east
rather than from the southeast. The poles just east of the crash
point (column 14) were standing -- and so I argued that the plane
could not have been flying low enough to have hit the building.
When Harvey finally showed me the pictures that he had been keeping
from me -- it was immediately obvious what happened. The plane the
witnesses say was not the object (I was calling it the "small jet"
since the security camera admitted of a plane not much larger than
an F-15 and the tail and smoke trail indicated a single engine
flying plane or cruise missle. Russel and Stanley conducted their
research -- the "The Five- Sided Fantasy Island" inwhich they
independently corroborated the initial analysis of David Bosankoe
and myself. Bosankoe recorded this finding for all time in an
article that is still up on Rense. Before that I had reported on
Jim Valentine's program in November 2001 about bombs on he lower
floors of South Tower, and about remote controlled aircrashes that
preceeded 9-11, like the downing of EgyptAir 990 on the morning of
October 31, 1999 -- a plane carrying top Egypitan military leaders
from Washingto to Cairo. And more. Now Jim Hoffman is a strange
case. At first he wrote a detailed article corroborating my
Pentagon conclusions and he was easy for me to get in touch with.
Then I don't hear from him and after a few months I discover that
he has written a detailed hatchet-job attack on my views without
giving me a chance to respond and without publishing it in places
where I would be likely to see it. I have respopnded to Hoffman but
he has never gotten back. He has made many straw man arguemnts
against me and -- as Victoria Ashley says -- flooded the world with
too much information. But he has never offered to subject his
criticsims to my defense of my findings. He has made his reputation
and become one of the big name investigators after his coversion to
the official story. I am still willing to debate Hoffman -- on the
facts of the case, as I have presented them here. I have always
been up for that. He has never responsed to anything I have written
-- just like Alex Jones and others in that regard. I have exposed
in all of their falsehoods John Judge and other investigators --
like Mike Ruppert - who threatened to sue me for criticizing him
for running away on international conferences on Peak Oil just as
the 9-011 commission was convening and taking testimony
29. of witnesses. He was the only one with a reputation big
enough that the committe would have had to have heard him -- and he
(and Carol Brouillet) made sure of that -- and the only other time
he addressed me was in 2001 when he accused me of being an ignorant
fraud because I maintained that the Northern Alliance was providing
China with opium for Chinese heroin that was flooding Europe -- a
perfect motive for attacking ther religious Taliban who, under
Mohammed Omar and an Islamic revival in the former Sovited occupied
country was erradicate the opium fields in the lands southern areas
which the Taliban controlled. George Bush united with the Northern
alliance and today the opium crop is bigger than ever. There is
nothign wrong with my analysis or methods or conclusions that I
should be ignored. My only problem is that none of my readers can
tolerate my long posts like this one. And no one but Jeff Rense has
ever really given my findings a chance to be examined by large
numbers of people. Victoria Ashley: [Quoting Jim Hoffman] "A theory
of the Pentagon attack by researcher Richard Eastman attempts to
reconcile conclusions that a 757 did not hit the building with
eyewitness accounts of such an aircraft apparently flying into it.
Many other skeptics of the official story of Flight 77's crash,
such as Thierry Meyssan, Eric Hufschmid, and Gerard Holmgren, have
tended to minimize eyewitness accounts, highlighting
inconsistencies and suggesting that people mistook a painted drone
for an American Airlines jetliner. In contrast, the two-plane
theory accommodates most portions of the eyewitness accounts except
those relating to the moment of impact. Eastman corresponded with
some witnesses about their recollections. "According to the theory,
the attack combined a hit by a small attack jet with an overflight
by Flight 77. The attack jet, likely an F-16 single-engine
supersonic fighter, flew in at treetop level, clipping lamp-posts
on the highway overpass, and smashing into the Pentagon's west
wall, with the engine penetrating the C-ring and producing the
eight-foot- diameter punch-out hole. Meanwhile Flight 77 approached
on a slightly more northerly trajectory, diving down over the Naval
Annex and leveling out as it approached the Pentagon. Before
reaching the huge building, the 757 disappeared behind a blinding
flash and fireball, overflew the Pentagon, and blended into traffic
landing at Reagan National Airport. " [end of Jim Hoffman quote]
Dick Eastman also attempted to use witness accounts to support his
claims: "WITNESS ACCOUNTS REPORTING ONLY ONE PLANE DIVIDE INTO TWO
MUTUALLY CONTRADICTING GROUPS -- No conspiracy would hire (or
trust) that
30. many liars, so both groups must be telling the truth --
there must have been two planes. Judge for yourself: Witnesses who
claim to have seen only one plane break into two groups. Those who
describe, 1) an airliner, shiny, red and blue markings, with two
engines, in a dive, and flying "low" in terms of one or two hundred
feet, and silent (engines idle); and, 2) a plane that came in at
tree-top level, at "20 feet" all the way, hitting lamp posts in
perfect low level flight that must have been established and
stabilized well before the lamp posts were reached; engines
roaring; pouring on speed; smaller than a mid-sized airliner. . . .
But if the witnesses testimony is inconclusive the actual video
recording of the attack is not. The killer jet was not a Boeing and
it did not dive. Adam Larson, author of The Frustrating Fraud Blog,
examined Eastman's method and noted the avoided reference of the
C-130: "If we combine the two descriptions we get a composite of
the one plane official story. Conversely, by fragmenting the
descriptors and creating two piles he creates two jets. . . .
Eastman was aware of the C-130, and mentioned it once in the paper.
He noted the cargo plane could have aerially planted the 757 debris
indicating impact, especially the wheel in the parking lot," as it
passed "just 30 seconds later." It is never mentioned in connection
with two-planes accounts despite at least one that was quite clear
on being a C-130 witness. EASTMAN AND THE DECOY THEORY The
Frustrating Fraud; February 3, 2008 Dick Eastman: I have
"mentioned" the C-130 at least a hundred times over the years since
before the APFN webpage that was put up in 2003 and soon afterward
corrupted by latering the pictures and removing and relocating text
so that the article said somethign completely different than what I
originally wrote -- and no-planer-to-be Rosalee Grable was well
positioned in APFN at that time - and Don Vardan (or is it Vardon)
would not either correct or remove the sabotaged webpage. Anyway I
gave full accounts of how the plane came over, and I also gave
verbatum quotes of those witnesses who recognized the C-130. But I
also reported the many who say the American Airlines Boeing (or
more likely a different Boeing in Am Air livery) come over the
Naval Annex. Lagasse reported specifically that the plane was
American Airlines and he convinced me that he knows these planes
very well. Riskus said he saw an airliner and that it appeared to
go "straight in" (meaning at close to 90-degrees to the wall) and
many many others. It is simply wrong to say I disallowed that the
C-130 could have been the big plane people saw. I have allowed that
witnesses saw a C-130. I have also taken all those witnesses as
their word who say a get airliner and an American Airlines airliner
fly over towards the Pentagon along that Path over the Annex and
North of the Gas Station that was everywhere north of the path
indicated by the debris trail (fallen lamposts, downed fence, holes
in the Pentagon wells all in a line. If Victoria Ashley had really
done her homework she would have checked the
31. actual facts and deductions of the original expositor of
the "fly-over" or "decoy" theory. But from another angle I can
certaily see why she would want to avoid doing so. Victoria Ashley:
Later, in 2004, Richard Stanley & Jerry Russell created a
similar theory in their essay, 'Five Sided Fantasy Island', but
with shaped charge explosives instead of the military fighter jet:
Our analysis indicates that in reality, sophisticated shaped-charge
explosive technology was used to create a scene comporting with the
appearance of an jetliner crash, while simultaneously a 757
overflew the area and landed at nearby Reagan National Airport. If
this scenario is correct, it shows that US intelligence agencies
have developed an extraordinary capability to create elaborate
magic shows on the world stage, generate false testimony and false
evidence, and control and manipulate not only the "official story"
but also its dialectical opposition among the critics. The
Five-Sided Fantasy Island: An analysis of the Pentagon explosion on
9-11 911- Strike.com; March 12, 2004
http://911-strike.com/pentagon.htm The Eastman and Stanley/Russell
claims never got much traction and over time, were virtually
ignored. Hoffman describes a core issue with the theory: If the
overflight element of the two-plane theory seems bizarre, it
illustrates the difficulty in reconciling the eyewitness evidence
with the conclusion that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon. The
Two-Plane Theory 9-11 Research
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/theories/eastman.html
Indeed, one of the primary purposes of the CIT version of the
flyover theory was to attempt to force out of the witnesses some
type of support for the flyover by re-interpreting accounts which
often are transparently describing a different plane than CIT
claims, in most cases the C-130. As blogger Arabesque states: The
CIT flyover (what I correctly rename to the "mass hallucination
theory") largely depends on dismissing hundreds of witness
accounts, and deceptively insinuating that the widespread and
unanimous reports of the plane hitting the Pentagon do not count as
evidence of the "flight path".
32. CIT's Deceptive Flight Path Argument: "North" or "South"?
What about "Hit the Pentagon"? Arabesque 9/11 Truth; July 9, 2009
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/cits-deceptive-flight-path-argument.html
Interestingly, the flyover theories had been relatively forgotten,
replaced by the more palatable claims that a smaller plane had hit
the building, before CIT resurrected them. Dick Eastman: So what is
this Victoria Ashley a connoisseur of arguments who judges them on
their aesthetic effect or flavor on the palate? And does she accept
Jim Joffman's rejection of the flyover thesis on the basis of him
saying that it is "bizzare?" Victoria Ashley: However, in common
with all theories of "no Boeing impact" at the Pentagon, the
flyover theory must generate a rationale to remove witnesses who
contradict its claims. The first well-known 9/11 researcher to try
to "whittle away" the credibility of "undesirable" witnesses was
Gerard Holmgren, who, in 2002, wrote a long essay to wipe away all
witnesses to a Boeing hitting the Pentagon. Holmgren used the same
techniques which have been used repeatedly ever since then: cast
doubt on the veracity of the witness claims through an
ever-changing application made to fit each witness of how their
experience could not possibly have happened as reported -- they
must be confused or lying. Interestingly, the flyover theories had
been relatively forgotten, replaced by the more palatable claims
that a smaller plane had hit the building, before CIT resurrected
them. However, in common with all theories of "no Boeing impact" at
the Pentagon, the flyover theory must generate a rationale to
remove witnesses who contradict its claims. The first well-known
9/11 researcher to try to "whittle away" the credibility of
"undesirable" witnesses was Gerard Holmgren, who, in 2002, wrote a
long essay to wipe away all witnesses to a Boeing hitting the
Pentagon. Holmgren used the same techniques which have been used
repeatedly ever since then: cast doubt on the veracity of the
witness claims
33. through an ever-changing application made to fit each
witness of how their experience could not possibly have happened as
reported -- they must be confused or lying. Dick Eastman: She
mentions Holmgren? Holmgren is a man whose work I introduced to
America, he got in on my forwarding him. I put out his long factoid
lists, each factoid contradicing or conflicting with this or that
aspect of the official story of the Pentagon event. But Holmgren
told me himself that he did not think in the way that I did, that
he did not follow my arguments. Holmgren made his reputation on
amazing research of facts. But he had no part and no interest in my
investigative strategy to discover a few irrefutable chains of
events that discredit the official story and establish a grand
deception and the inside job -- if such existed. I found several
such lines of evidence after the security camera pictures were
released in March 2002. But Holmgren suddenly changed his tune,
stopped corresponding and then turned up allied with Rosalee Grable
(the "Webfairy")and Morgan Reynolds and Nico Haupt in pushing
no-planes. It was very similar to the quick conversion of Jim
Hoffman -- and just like the no-planers Hoffman has never really
presented any new finding that could effect such a sudden coversion
from something he had been actively and effectively arguing for for
over two months. He just changed sides and make a point of
announcing it in forums that I had no access to, but which others
made sure would be heard far and wide in the right circles of
"Truthdom". Holmgren never argued for the overflight thesis. I
asked him many times, when we were "on the same side" why he did
not endorse the thesis that I developed out of the March 2002
security cam pictures that I first heard of from David Bosankoe.
And yes I should mention that for months many people were
constantly working on Bosankoe to tear him away from his support of
my position. He never gave in but he did give up and recede into
quite obscurity on the subject. I hear from him every year or so
since about 2005 -- although he is on may mailing list (address
book actually) for all topics. I have never tried to "whittle way"
"undesirable witnesses" -- and I have reported every one that said
he saw the plane crash. I never hid data that worked against my
thesis. I believe and have demonstrated that there is no better
research tool and no greater qualification for doing good research
than total honesty regardless of which way new physical facts or
witness accounts may go.
34. Victoria Ashley: Just as Eastman and Russell/Stanley before
them, CIT also cannot address the elephant in the room: why didn't
people on the other sides of the Pentagon report seeing the plane
flying away? Indeed, as we look a little closer, we discover that
the flyover theory only works if humans on all of the other sides
of the Pentagon do not exist. The hand-waving explanations
attempting to account for how all of the people on the other sides
could also have not noticed a large commercial jet roaring away
over the top of the largest office building in the world, just no
longer suffice, and the cloud of a dark mystery begins to fade like
fog in sunlight, as the flyover theory falls apart before our eyes.
Dick Eastman: Most of the people on the other side of the Pentagon
were watching 9-11 in New York live on Television or thinking about
what they had just seen. Also the plane came in so low that the
plane was lost and could not be seen against the sky. And it moved
so fast that it was over in no time flat. And as I said, by the
time the noise of the blast reached the crowded areas across the
Potomac the plane was already blended into Reagan National air
traffice -- where it could have appeared to many as a plane taking
off -- a very usual thing most people who live and work about
airports learn to filter out so as not to be distracted from
matters at hand. After all if they saw an explosion they would
never think that an airliner near the airport was in any way
conncected with it. One does not think of airliners, American
Airlines planes fireing missiles or dropping bombs -- there was
nothing to connect sight of the plane with an explosion at the
Pentagon. The first thoughts at the Pentagon were that bombs went
off. The second thought was that a plane had crashed. But if they
though a plane crashed no one would think another plane -- a plain
run-of-the-mill American Airlines plane like those (including
FLight 77) tha fly in and out of there all day long -- there would
be no reason to connect the plane with the explosion. Minds would
immediately begin working on the question -- did plane crash? was
it a bomb? A jetliner near the airport would never suggest
connection with the sound and the smoke pouring from the Pentagon
as viewed from Washington DC.
35. Victoria Ashley: Consequently, flyover advocates must claim
that two different realities exist on either side of the Pentagon.
On one side, witnesses are worthy of being interviewed and can
report the flyover implicitly, even if they actually believe they
saw the plane hit the building. On the other side, witnesses would
have been too confused to be taken seriously by any media
interviewing them, and would have also been too confused by all the
planes in the air. As a blogger on the Above Top Secret forum
notes, even the plane itself changes on each side of the building.
.... I just found a four-year-old "debunking" critique of my
evidence-derived conclusion that the Boeing witnesses say flying
towards the Pentagon actually flew over the Pentagon while planted
bombs went off and a much smaller single-engine plane or missle
(AGMs and cruise/drone) struck below. The critique was written in
August of 2009 by Victoria Ashley, shown below. As always not one
9-11 "truther" bothered to inform me that this critique existed.
What Kind of Girl Disagrees with Dick Eastman?
36. Victoria Ashley and her book I just found a four-year-old
"debunking" critique of my evidence-derived conclusion that the
Boeing witnesses say flying towards the Pentagon actually flew over
the Pentagon while planted bombs went off and a much smaller
single-engine plane or missle (AGMs and cruise/drone) struck below.
The critique was written in August of 2009 by Victoria Ashley,
shown below. As always not one 9-11 "truther" bothered to inform me
that this critique existed. Victoria Ashely is one of a group of
"false opposition", cover-up agents like Jim Fetzer and Alex Jones
who obstruct justice to protect international organized crime that
has gotten control of the American state apparatus and is
conducting unconventional "Sun-tse" warfare against the United
States with infiltration, sabotage and provocateur operations like
9-11. Who were the passengers of 9-11? Many of them appear to have
been agents with false identities whose identities, but not their
lives, were terminated with the 9-11 operation. Before I rebut
Victoria Ashley here is an article exposing some famous disinfo
artists who were both reported "victims" of 9-11 and who have have
become Truthers who have conspicuously been gatekeepers and
promoters of bogus theories and evidence. Just to motivate this let
me point out that Ted Olsen, George W. Bush's solicitor general
(whose job is to protect the President from lawsuites) falsely
claimed to have received two phone calls from his wife, Barbara
Olsen, on September, an event which first Dr. A. K. Dewdney and
then many others have established to be impossible. The loss of a
White House figures wife was perfect for diverting any suspicion
from the White House (as was the attack on the Pentagon where key
9-11 conspirators Paul Wolfowitz, Dov Zakheim, Richard Perle, Henry
Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld and others had offices, but not on the
west side of the Pentagon that was attacked. And now it has been
remarked how very much Ted Olsen's new wife resembles Barbara Olsen
who allegedly was killed on Flight 77 which it is claimed upon
known falsified evidence to havehit the Pentagon. Now read
this:
37. THE "9/11 TRUTHERS" WHO ARE 9-11 "VICSIM" LOOK-ALIKES Have
prominent "truthers" lent their faces to some "victims" in the 9/11
Memorials? This post is to summarize a hypothesis which has emerged
due to a series of empirical observations - featuring some bizarre
'coincidental' aspects. As crazy as this may sound (but 9/11 WAS
undoubtedly a crazy affair), we may find some victims in the 9/11
memorials which share remarkable facial AND name analogies with
some well-known characters at the forefront of the so-called "Truth
Movement". (all of them being notorious ...ehrm... money- makers.)
LUKASZ MILEWSKI (2001?) versus LUKASZ RUD(k)OWSKI* (2009?) *Prison
Planet spells name without the "k"
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/people/3664.html
38. This is what "MILE"means in Polish: "pleasantly" - "kindly"
- "affably" - "heartily" MILEWSKI - RUDOWSKI ....get it ? Anyhow,
looks like the Wearechange 'frontman' Lukasz is good at raising
money...: Paul Isaac(NY sentinel) wrote: "I did a search on the New
York State Court Unified Court System at (...) for Lukasz
Rudkowski. Since Lukasz was able to raise $5k for the legal defense
fund; why does he have a legal aide lawyer? What has he done with
money he raised for a lawyer? More mystery involving Lukasz and
large amounts of money." http://rfkin2008.wordpress.com/2008/08/ *
* * "ROBERT T. LANE" versus MANNY BADILLO
39.
http://photos.silive.com/advance/2009/09/911_victims_120.html Manny
(who allegedly lost his uncle on 9/11) is also good at ...uh...
raising money - in close complicity with his colleague Lukasz
Rudkowski:
40. "Heather LaMastro has started attacking 9/11 Victims Family
member Manny Badillo for being complicit in Luke Rudkowskis
embezzlement of funds promised to 9/11 first responders and for
Wearechange New Yorks operating costs. In past articles we have
shown you that other members of Wearechange New York have begun to
question where the money goes."
http://crotchshotradio.com/2010/12/17/who-was-complicit-in-luke-rudkowskis-
embezzlement/ * * * ALEXANDER Robert NAPIER
------------versus------------- ALEXANDER Emmerich JONES
http://www.septemberclues.info/terror/New%20York%20og%20Washington%2011.%20se
ptember%202001%207_files/1932-Ale.jpg Well...I trust we all know
just how good Alex Jones is at raising money - for himself * * *
"PAUL J. BATTAGLIA" versus WILLY RODRIGUEZ
http://voicesofseptember11.org/dev/memo ... 2756628371
41. (Just for speculative entertainment - since I'm such a
conspiracy nut - please note that 'Battaglia' comes from Latin
"battualia" (military exercises/fight/battle) while 'Rodriguez' -
of hispanic origin - means "famous ruler/"famed conqueror"/or
"famous power") Looks like Willy, the "9/11 rescue hero", is also a
master at the fine art of fundraising - for the victims families,
of course ! Here's someone leaving a most eloquent/intelligent
comment about him - on the WeAreChange.org website : Brian Good
says: December 28, 2010 at 12:54 pm Willie tells a great
inspirational storyliterally incredible! My favorite parts are the
22- story internal collapse that he alone witnessed, the $122
million he raised for the community that he alone counted, the
hundreds he saved by opening doors and letting people out that
nobody else seems to remember, and his single-handed rescues of
fifteen (15) persons who turned out to be his co-workers in the ABM
office who were in no danger and could rescue themselves just fine.
http://www.wearechange.org/?p=5320 The meaning of the surname
"Rodriguez" :
http://www.genealogyforum.com/messages/genbbs.cgi/New/29781 ...
/New/29781 Now back to Dick Eastman:
42. The only places where you can still find my Pentagon
analysis is on Rense.com (it is in five parts 1,2,3,4 and 5) In
fact the only way I can prove I was one of the early 9-11
investigators is the fact that David Ray Griffin featured my
analysis of the evidence and my conclusions in Pentagon chapter of
his first book on the false-flag frameup, 9-11 The New Pearl Harbor
- first edition. The old timers who conducted their own
investigations of my work and agreed with me me have all quit
trying to crash the gate and are even more less known than I am.
9-11 Highest Treason Substantiated
http://www.rense.com/general86/hight1.htm Conclusions drawn from
the evidence in the September 11, 2001 killings at the Pentagon and
this slapdash summary I put on Youtube last year: Dick Eastman -
Pentagon (53 minutes) - evidence sufficient
{youtube}5-IXAe0UOYg{/youtube} Also you will note that Victoria
Ashley is one of the confirmed "no-planers" -- a name I coined to
describe the group that began with Rosalee Grable, Gerard Holmgren
and Dr. Morgan Reynolds (an economist who was at the White House
with Ted Olsen and Karl Rove, and who happens to have known me when
I was a graduate student in the doctoral program at Texas A & M
where Reynolds has taught since those days in the early 1980s.
Morgan Reynolds, joined the Truth Movement directly from the White
House -- and instead of contacting me with his new- found "Truther"
convictions -- and he would know of me because of Griffin's book --
he instead joined forces with the amazing
"no-planes'-hit-the-WTC-towers" movement which sprung up all of a
sudden and in no time had hundreds of followers, websites and a
vicious team of attack-dogs who want after "plane-huggers" like me.
Obviously the plan was to overthrow the finding that Flight 77 did
not crash into the Pentagon with the bogus, offensive and repelling
absurdity that no planes hit the wtc. Ashely like Reynolds joined
the no-planes-hit-the-WTC but she also found interest in writing a
debunk of my finding that the large plane people say flying towards
the Pentagon actually flew over the Pentagon at the moment a bomb
emitting a blinding flash and at least two flying objects struck
the building below. Here is Ashley's attack on the flyover thesis
-- which I say is fully established in the eyes of any intelligent
and impartial person who will look at the several indepenent chains
of evidence that I present which conclusively demonstrate the
no-flyover thesis. I should add that Ashley does not attack me --
but instead attacks several clowns who came in years after I drew
my conclusions -- and presented their own bogus theory of a
fly-over -- they supplied flesh-and-blood straw men for Victoria
Ashley to attack -- in every instance Ashley attacks my flyover
thesis on the basis of the bogus non-sequiters introduced by the
"Citizens Investigation Team" disinformation team and the bogus
"no-planer" ridden Pilot's For 9-11 Truth -- which exists purely to
crowd out my findings with their own intentionally weak arguments
rife with stupid theories that do not really follow from the
evidence but which do a wonderful job of turning people away from
looking further into flyover theory where they would discover the
real evidence (my evidence) that they have so effectively prevented
from spreading.
43. My findings have been rejected by every big name
investigator including most recently by Barbara Honegger. I am the
invisible 9-11 and inaudible investigator. If it were not for Jeff
Rense I would today be completely unknown in the "9-11 Truther
Community" as it has been created by Mike Ruppert, Carol Brouillet
and Dr. James Fetzer. At any rate here is the hatchet-job
straw-man-using, evidence-ignoring and argument-ignoring critique
of no-planer author Victoria Ashley, accusing me of "conning" the
9-11 truth movement. To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT's PentaCon
'Magic Show' Victoria Ashley: This essay examines the work of the
Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), a team of two people who claim to
prove that a complicated "magic show" occurred during the Pentagon
attack on 9/11/01, fooling all of the witnesses and surviving
victims of the event into believing that American Airlines Flight
77 (AA77) hit the Pentagon, when instead, it flew just over the
building, obscured by a simultaneous explosion, and then somehow
flew away, unnoticed by anyone in the area (the "flyover" theory).
CIT took their camcorders and went to Washington, DC, where they
interviewed a select group of Pentagon attack eye witnesses whom
they believe, indicate a different flightpath from the accepted
flightpath (the one described by a trail of damage leading up to
the building). These interviews, it is claimed, provide the primary
"evidence" for the flyover theory. Or so we are led to believe.
Dick Eastman: The fact that in 2003 I had addressed the very
question of why the plane was not noticed. First the explosion
occured exactly one mile from the north end of one of the runways
of Reagan National Airport, so that in 3.5 seconds the plane was
closer to the runway than it was to the crash point. Second I
pointed out the bright initial flash, not explained by an airplane
crash, a flash bright enough to have a camera flash-bulb effect on
the vision of observers with a view of the building. Third, I
pointed out
44. that observers tend to construct what is not there when
they are shown things contrary to their experience and
expectations. When you see a large plane approach the pentagon then
a bright flash and then, when you can see again, a big explosion
taking place, you tend to jump to the most reasonable conclusion,
the one that fi