Case solved. America's criminal ruling elite is
responsible for the war-instigating mass-murders
of 11 September, 2001. The proof is in the Pentagon
attack.
As you will see here, the Pentagon's security camera
video sequence is "SMOKING-GUN" EVIDENCE, establishing
the September 11 mass-murder as an "INSIDE-JOB," a
frameup conspiracy devised to involve the U.S. in a war
for monopoly Control of oil, for war munitions and
war-debt profiteering, for greater centralization of
Federal power over our lives, and for the continuation
of Afganistani "Northern Alliance" druglords' opium
shipments over the Silk Road to China to boost world
HEROIN PRODUCTION thereby increasing the flow of drug
revenues that are laundered into the big New York and
City of London investment banks for investment in
"global plantation" penny-labor super factories in
the "People's" Republic of Chinese Triad Princelings.
Open attachment or find the attack frames
at these sites:
animation sequencing
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm
frame-by-frame sequencing
http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp?cp1=1
stills
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_plane.htm
Observe:
1) the size of tail fin image in frame #1 requires that for the plane
to be a Boeing 757, the front end of its shiny silver fuselage would
have to be visible in the broad sunlight 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, Stegasaurus style,
adding fins from the tail fin in the rear forward to
the nose, however the width of the image of the driveway
pillar that conceals the entire fuselage of the attacking
plane is only five times as wide as the tail fin that
appears sticking up above and behind it, 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 you stood the
aircraft behind the pillar on end against the wall, say
half way to the far end of the wall from the impact point,
it would reach no more than 70 percent of the wall's
height, the method is rough, but the margin of error in
your estimate can be nowhere near the 218 percent difference
that would be needed to turn that attack jet into Flight 77.
2) The presence of the unmistakable white horizonal
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 frameup;
3) In frame #2 the tell-tale white-hot intitial
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.
What about the coverup scenarios that seek to explain
away this smoking-gun evidence?
There is nothing to them. The lamp posts along the
path of the attack jet were blown down sideways by
the cyclonic turbulence (force of pushing through
thick lower atmosphere at 500+mph concentrated in
a vortex coming off the wings) rather than hit by
the wing, dented and fallen forward. The single
piece of debris from a Boeing 757 has been identified
as a uniquely starboard piece, whereas it was found
hundreds of feet away on the PORT side -- like
finding a car's passenger-side door dozens of feet
away on the driver's side following a head-on
collision. An early picture shows an agent in
white shirt carrying a piece of "debris" that
looks very much like the "planted" piece of false
evidence. Only one engine punched through the
C-ring -- it was the engine of the small jet mounted
in the fuselage. The hole was small enough to
accomodate the small jet, but nowhere near large
enough for a Boeing 757 to fit through. Witnesses
in front of the Pentagon report a plane (like a
cruise missile with wings; a plane that could not
possibly carry more than 12 passengers) that flew
low and level (at "treetop level," and "at 20 feet")
into the Pentagon.
Others say they saw the American Flight 77 at that same moment
diving from "an irrecoverable angle," but one observer in those
three seconds saw two jets approaching the Pentagon and one of
these veer away as the other hit. The diving plane that people
identified as Flight 77 must have merely turned slightly and in the
confusion and distraction caused by the explosion from the small-jet
attack -- put down its landing gear and slipped into normal landing
traffic for Reagan National Airport LESS THAN TWO MILES AWAY,
where it presumably taxied unobserved to a waiting empty hanger
where passengers debarked into waiting block windown busses
and the plane recieved a change of paint, serial numbers and
"license plate." We know that at Dulles Airport (where Flight 77
took off) and at Reagan National (where it must have landed)
there were 87 Israeli workers with illegal top airport security
badges giving them access to airport security, the control tower,
hangers, loading docks, and passenger check in locations -- these
persons were later DEPORTED BY ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT
without an accounting of their purpose or their affiliation with Mossad
or other organizations. And finally, for the purposes of this little
summary, we have the fact of both the intelligence "stand down"
and the Air Defense stand down.
------------
Flight 77 landed at Reagan National Airport after its
attention-getting dive toward the Pentagon.
Here is a satellite photo that shows how uncomplicated that
maneuver was and how its execution could be accomplished
with minimum visibility following the explosion that certainly
the planners counted on to distract from this "magician's exit."
Here is the satellite picture:
In the center of the picture is the Pentagon.
At the lower left is visible, across the Potomac and starting a
few yards from the water's edge, the landing strip labelled "15."
(Must be viewed in largest frame.) The plane might have been
able to turn sharply enough to arrive at this point from its
dive at the Pentagon, but it need not have. Flight 77 could
have aligned with this runway further to down or crossed the
airport and circled around for a different approach (as planes
were not yet grounded or being re-routed at this time) or it
could have used one of the two other runways at Reagan.
Either way it would have been blended in and lost in
regular air traffic.
Above the Pentagon and to the left is the Naval Annex building
and the turnpike cloverleaf over or near which both Flight 77
and the killer jet approached the Pentagon.
Flight 77 was higher and visible to witnesses against the sky.
The much smaller and less visible killer jet was hugging the
ground at 20 feet or less and approaching at must faster speed
-- on a path low enough that it would be viewed against the
confusion of visual "noise" of the buildings and Arlington
National Cemetary by any observer who saw it. Only one
observer saw both planes, he reports that both approached
and that one "veered" from its collision course as the other
proceeded into the target.
The veer was sharp but managable turn, which took it over
two parking lots, on cluster of small office buildings, over the
Potomac and unto the tarmac of landing a strip at Reagan National.
Notice that many observers on the turnpike in front of the West Wall,
including Riskus, would not have been able to visually follow
Flight 77 because of the massive smoke and cement dust raised
by the crash of the killer jet and the ground-to-air missile it fired
just before its own impact.
At the time of the attack those two parking lots would have been
full of empty cars. Most people would have been glued to
their televisions watching news flashes or absorbed in other
activities deemed even more important than watching a terror
attack on the World Trade Center towers.
Seeing the layout, knowing what all of the witnesses said,
knowing from the video that the killer jet was no Boeing 757,
we can be certain not only that this was the frameup conspirators
plan, but also that no other plan would have accomplished this
deceit. This has to be what happened to Flight 77.
Concerning the "official" (coverup) story:
1) Planted Evidence: the world-famous piece of a
Boeing 757 photographed on the Pentagon lawn south
of the crash did not come from Boeing 757
# N644AA, American Airlines Flight 77 -- it could
only have come from the starboard side (because
of the length of sheet aluminum after the letter
"n" painted on the piece) -- but the piece was found
and photographed hundreds of feet south of the
crash, on the port side of the killer jet as it
approached its target.
and
2) Riskus Fooled. Why Pentagon attack "star witness"
Steve Riskus did not see and could not have seen Flight
77 hit the Pentagon.
As his own photographs reveal, Steve Riskus could not have
seen actual attack plane because, from where he was, it would
have have been hidden by the confusion of visual "noise" of rows
of buildings in the background against which the attacking aircraft
was flying. Rather, he saw the decoy airliner, Flight 77 as it also
approached the Pentagon, as has been established.
Riskus says:
"I took these pictures less then 1 minutes after I watched
the american airlines 757 airplane crash into the pentagon
on september 11 "
He was driving. Flight 77 was above the Pentagon against the
sky and he saw it. The attacking jet came in at tree-top level,
at 20 feet, at a height lower than the tops of lamp posts, even
when it was crossing the distant highway clover leaf in its approach
from the northwest. As you can see from the pictures taken by
Riskus (below), the approaching plane would have had to have
been seen against the buildings, not against the sky. (Riskus is
at a point lower than the Pentagon security camera video showed
only the tail fin sticking above the background buildings against
the sky.)
Note that the Pentagon in the pictures is 71 feet high. A man driving
could not focus on such a well-camoflaged visual stimulus in the two
or three seconds it took the plane reach the target -- even if he had
been looking for it.
Riskus saw Flight 77. He also attended the road on which he was
driving. Even to come to a stop he would have to make sure cars
behind him were stopping also -- by the time he could stop it would
have been all over.
Flight 77 was above the Pentagon clearly visible against the sky.
But Riskus had to have taken his eyes off the plane and close to
that split second the explosion hit. Riskus honestly made the
perceptual error of assuming that proximity and temporal closeness
of events indicate causal relationship. When the bright explosion
occured and the smoke and flame Riskus assumed it was becase
the airliner he had been watching had crashed -- he did not notice
past the distraction of the explosion that an airliner was still in the
air, that it continued to descend and then to land at Reagan National
less than two miles away (the Pentagon is in Reagan National's
ordinary landing paths. Finally, Flight 77 just became another
airliner routinely landing and blending in as it taxied to a the
predesignated hanger.
Riskus can be telling the truth. His eyes did not deceive him.
His brain did. He was in no position to see and to mentally process
a frameup switch in the space of three seconds while driving,
especially when many of us are incapable of accepting the reality
of the switch and frameup even after seeing the small plane
attacking the Pentagon on the security video camera time after time.
Likely RIskus has been a good citizen telling us what he knows
-- maybe most of us would have been tricked in the same way
under identical conditions of expectation, visual stimulus and
short available processing time.
For this reason we must conclude that this witness's account holds
little water next to the video camera recording that captures the
small jet attack, and all the other indications of a small plane and
government deception.
Gerard Holmgren adds this about Riskus:
Questions have to be asked about the honesty of Riskus.
He set up his website on Sept 10.
Coincidence ?
Maybe.
He had photos uploaded to his site within an hour of the attack.
Did he just happen to have have a wireless lap top with him?
Maybe.
Maybe,too, in this great state of shock, his first thought was "wow, I'll
wire straight through to the website I set up yesterday!" ???
Or did he race straight home, and say 'hey gotta get these pics onto my
new web site , pronto!" ?
Maybe.
I wouldn't be pronouncing him as a definite conspiritor on the basis
of this, but I think a fair amount of suspicion is reasonable.
Then he hosts [full time heckler of Pentagon investigators, Ron] Harvey's
page, and we all know how honest Harvey is. [Harvey has been caught
concealing information contrary to his debunking scenarios and excluding
all counter indications from his very well funded "dragonslayer" website. --DE]
Of course he may have been innocently used by Harvey.
What about his claim that "Debris landed on my car?"
But he didn't take any photos of it? Was his car damaged? It's difficult
to see that it wouldn't have been. Debris must have been either hot or
carrying some weight. Either would have caused damage to his car. So
you would take pictures for insurance purposes, if nothing else. Too
shocked to think of it? But not too shocked to take a whole lot of photos
from different vantage points and then get them onto his website within
an hour. And notice how there's no sign of any debris near any of the other
cars. So it just singled out his car? Any other witnesses say "I saw a nearby
car get hit by debris?"
I think he probably would have had only about 1 second to sight the plane,
and yet he claims he clearly noticed what airline and what model plane it
was, down to the fact that he saw 'turbine engines" on the wings. A cool,
quick thinker? but not cool and quick enough to take photos of the damage
to his car?
Dick Eastman's analysis is noted as a possibility, but suspicion of Riskus
is also justified.
--------------------------------------------------
Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: The September 11 Pentagon Murders
Having been an Airline Boeing 747 Captain pilot, there is no way
and no evidence that an American flight 77, Boeing 757 jet aircraft,
crashed into the pentagon. The force of the weight of the kerosene
wing tanks fuel alone would cause a hole three times larger than
that shown in the picture.
"Red Baron"
--------------------------
`Bin Laden does not have the capabilities for an operation of this
magnitude. When I hear Bush talking about al-Qaeda as if it were
Nazi Germany or the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, I laugh
because I know what is there. Bin Laden has been under surveillance
for years: every telephone call was monitored and al-Qaeda has
been penetrated by US intelligence, Pakistani intelligence, Saudi
intelligence, Egyptian intelligence. They could not have kept secret
an operation that required such a degree of organisation and
sophistication.'"
--Mohammed Heikal The Guardian, 10/10/01
For more information consult these uncompromised sources:
Dick Eastman
223 S. 64th Ave.
Yakima, Washington
(509) 965-4893
Notice: TGS HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.
