Reply #101: let crispy himself rebut this reply from eastman [View All]

[dick_eastman]

:kick:

Hello fellow Democrats.



Here is the small-plane finding you're arguments did not engage:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/94

Here are specific answers to each component of your effort:



It Was Flight 77 that Flew over the Pentagon
Debunking Anonymous Pentagon Frame-up Cover-ops


An anonymous writer (crispy) makes this true but, in isolation, misleading statement:

"The damage done by the flying object to nearby light poles, the Pentagon's facade, and other objects is consistent with the measurements of a Boeing 757-200."

What does that fact buy you, crispy? What does it buy you as an explanation of broken dishes on the floor to say: "The broken dishes on the resteraunt floor are consistent with a giraffe scaring the waiter by breathing down the back of his neck." Being consistent with and being narrowed down as the only possible cause are two very different things. So what about the critical fact that other events are also consistent with the downed pole data; or the fact that witnesses placed the Boeing 757 on a path that passes north of lamppost #1 as it crossed from west to east towards the Pentagon and Reagan National Airport one mile beyond.

Crispy also makes this statement:

" By examining the damage, it is possible to conclusively rule out the possibility that a missile or small jet struck the Pentagon on September 11."

This of course is exactly the opposite of the truth, of what can be "ruled out." It is the Boeing 575 that is too short to fit the image in the security camera's pictures of the attack -- which pictures crispy fails to include in his selection of pictures.

Look here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rumsfeld_9-11_involvement/message/71

or here

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/94


Next crispy avers:

"Numerous witnesses said the plane knocked down light poles. Thanks to the work of Ron Harvey and his website, Spot the Lamp Poles, we know the location of each of the five downed poles"

Here crispy attempts to misrepresent "the prosecution's" argument by suggestion that the prosecution has denied that poles were knocked down. And crispy engages in Ron Harvey's falsehood that witnesses saw the Boeing knocking down the lamp posts -- when in fact Riskus saw the poles down after the event, the taxi driver, Michael England, saw the Boeing only after his car was hit by pole #1. Truth is only one man says he saw the Boeing hit a pole -- but he says that the pole was hit by a lowered wheel! -- when all other witnesses reported the Boeing with wheels up!



Next, in order to look like he is presenting hard data crispy presents an a satelite photo map of the Pentagon area with this comment:

"The following image is from Eric Bart's website: We know for sure that the plane knocked the poles down (as opposed to them being taken down for replacement or planted) because 1) the poles were found nearby, severed or otherwise damaged near the top, 2) many witnesses said that the plane was knocking down lamp poles, and 3) the poles were situated along what we know to be the plane's trajectory."

But again, crispy misleads. The poles not a question that is in dispute. I have long acknowledged the existence of the poles as soon as I finally got my hands on an actual picture of one (Ron Harvey was not forthcoming with me at the time) -- in fact it was the pole data in contrast to the witness accounts that first suggested the presense of two converging aircraft paths.

So it turns out that crispy is merely stating exactly what the small-plane school has been agreed was the approach path of the killer jet for over a year. To do this crispy draws a perpendicular to the wall and calculates the angle from the perpendicular -- drawing on all the prestige of protractor mathematics and space satellite images -- giving crispy's page a wonderful "technical" look that lends prestige to his revelation that yes, in fact, everyone is right about the angle of the killer jet. (I say 55 degrees from the wall, he says 42 from the perpendicular -- not much difference. A lot of work to "prove" a point that everyone on all sides has already accepted in the first place. But oooh how techincal it looks!

Crispy's conclusion which is again not new and not acknowledged by me, is that the plane took down poles that were each at most 45 feet from the center line of the approach path line to column #14 on the Pentagon wall, given by the ASCE engineers as place where the nose of the killer jet hit the west wall. But I have already shown this and explored the possibilites at great length here:



and here

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/31

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/32

Elsewhere I have asked:

Did the F-16 blow down all the lamp posts orjust the first three, leaving the Boeing to get the northmost two? Or were the poles brought down as part of the coverup, by explosives or an airborn lazer, or, was the killer jet one of the military's secret aircraft, or a custom-built aircraft with a wider wingspan than the F-16 -- as one witness reported a business jet that appeard capable of carrying "no more than 12 passengers."



And I gave his response in this posting to the Red_Jihad list for 9-11 investigators:

From: Dick Eastman <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 2:42 pm
Subject: Lamppost Counudrum The biggest challenge is the lampposts -- for both the "boeing thesis" and the "small-plane" thesis

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Red_Jihad/message/4

Check it out.

The bottom line of all this being that the poles are inconclusive as to what knocked them down, but not as to where they were knocked down -- whereas the Pentagon wall, the security camera pictures, the witness accounts, the exposed planting of debris evidence, the presence of a four-engine distraction plane over the capital in illegal airspace at the moment of the crash -- are all conclusive proofs -- each a serious hole in the official story that by itself requires a genuine national investigation. The poles remain problematical insofar as their downing can still be explained in many different ways -- and no investigator has narrowed down alternatives to say exactly how each pole was brought down (poles on and three and two by the killer jet and ple five by the overflying Boeing for example) or whether a wider plane -- at least two witnesses reported a plane that was of a size between the F-16 and a jetliner (see below for an example).

But what about the proofs that crispy, focused on the poles, has totally ignored? These proofs have nothing to do with the poles (see links above) yet are conclusive in establishing that the Boeing was observed in locations yielding an approach path that got nowhere near pole #1 -- although poles #s 4 and 5, which were in the known path of the overflying Boeing could have been knocked down (or blown down) by that plane.


In short crispy is almost right when he writes:

"whatever hit the Pentagon had to have a wingspan of at the very least 90 feet" --

but to be rigorous and accurate crispy should have said:

"whatever hit the Pentagon had to have had generated force sufficient to knock down lampposts within a distance of at least 45 feet from either side of engineers' disignated line of killer jet approach to column #14 -- a width of force from either 1) the moving mass of the wing, engine or fuselage or 2) the intense cyclonic turbulence that comes off the tips of the wings of high speed jets and can easily bring down lampposts or cause planes that are caught in the wash to become upset and even crash.

But this assumes that all the poles were brought down by just one plane -- an assumption that the known converging paths of the observed Boeing and the pole-downing killer jet does not permit crisply to make.

Thus for two reasons these facts from crispy -- well known to all investigators -- about the poles' spacing does not narrow the options down to a plane the size of the Boeing 757 or even to one plane doing all the downing.


Next crispy shows a picture of damage to the left of pillar #14, which Eastman also shows and which Eastman agrees fails to uniquely support his thesis. But it is the damage to the right of pillar #14 that Eastman uses to prove that the Boeing did not hit the Pentagon. There are several features of the damaged wall that prove no two-engine jetliner hit that wall.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zionist-Op9-11/message/2

Next, it seems that crispy, instead of locking horns with my conclusions as derived from the evidence, instead chooses to tilt with a claim that no one has made, when he says:

"It is evident from the preceding pictures that there is a plane-sized hole in the facade, thus ruling out the missile theory,"

Who ever tried to prove the missile only from the damage to the wall?
Yes there are powder burns from the flash of the warhead, doubtless intended to blind observers to facilitate the magic getaway of the 757 in a puff of smoke. Yes there is another hole on the second level that is too far from column #14 to have been caused by the killer jet, and which indicates a missile attacke the wall. But certainly only a fringe of investigators are saying there was a missile without a plane -- and all of the "small-plane" theorists conclude from evidence that there was also a missile.

Is dear old crispy suggesting that any investigator has claimed that the missile made the hole made by the killer jet?

Yes there was a missle and likely two missiles in addition to the killer jet and the Boeing. The fact is that there is evidence of two missiles -- one with a flash-explosion missile warhead that created the white-hot explosion recorded in the second picture from the security camera, defintely a missile warhead with proximity fuse that provided the flash that enabled the Boeing to slip unseen behind the explosion -- and a second missile that entered the building at the second-floor at well to the right of the damage caused by missile and killer jet in the vacinity of pillar 14. See:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zionist-Op9-11/message/2

From that glaring misrepresentation of the small-plane thesis, crispy then proceeds to his this argument:

"and the hole itself is, according to the ASCE, 96 feet, with apparent wing damage extending beyond the hole for a total of ~141 feet, thus ruling out the small-plane theory."

First, the ASCE does not make any claim of one hole of 96 feet in length. There entire analysis is of pillars and the degree of damage done to each. There is an area of damage on the first floor that is 75 feet in length. This is a serious misrepresentation, crispy. You may want to retract it.) The ASCE, does not make any of crispy's claims about wing damage to the outer wall. In fact, Sarah Roberts and Ron Harvey have not eliminated any possibilities with their tortured analysis of the photo in question and neither does crispy in borrowing it.

Now, ,most important to me is the fact that crispy has nowhere addressed my claim that if the Boeing nose hit at the determined angle then the starboard engine would have had to have hit somewhere between columns 16 and 18, but there is clearly interior room partition (non-structure-supporting wall) still intact, where, had a Boeing engine crashed there it would have smashed throught the wall still standing.

Finally, crispy attempts to read more (and less) into what the witnesses tell us about the crash:

"The witness accounts nail the coffin shut on other-plane theories. "

But let us look at what these witnesses are saying here and what they are NOT saying:

" ''The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus...' Albert Hemphill, 9/11/01"

Yes, I often quote that one too. The man saw the Boeing 757 as it approached the Pentagon prior to its flyover and landing at Reagon National. Hemphill did not see the Boeing hit the Pentagon. Ron Harvey wants you to assume that which the witness actually never said.

" 'It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question.' Tim Timmerman, 9/11/01"

Timmerman is the only man Eastman accuses of lying -- he is the man who saw engines and wings fold up and enter the small hole etc. Timmerman contradicts the other witnesses.

" 'Foam 61 to Fort Myer. We have had a commercial carrier crash into the west side of the Pentagon at the heliport, Washington Boulevard side. The crew is OK. The airplane was a 757 Boeing or a 320 Airbus.' Alan Wallace, 9/11/01"

Again, we have a statement that is hearsay, Wallace is reasonable connecting witness accounts of seeing a Boeing with the fact of an explosion and damage -- it is a deduction made, because who would dream that this was a classic US disinformation black-op involving a day stealth surgical attack and a decoy airliner -- the CIA's specialty.

" 'I duck, I look up, it looks like a silver American Airlines, twin-engine plane...' Ian Wyatt, 9/11/01

Once again, is crispy trying to prove to us that there was a Boeing there that day -- or is he trying to set up a straw-man Dick Eastman -- Jim Hoffman- A.K. Dewdney etc. before people who haven't read these investigators, making them think that investigators concluding that the killer jet was a small-plane are claiming too that there was no Boeing on the scene???? This is not the first time that would-be "small-plane" debunkers have tried to pull this kind of thing -- obviously crispy is a good politician seeking to serve the common good and believing that worthy ends justify these kinds of stretches. That is where we differ clearly -- I say know the truth and then the truth will be the touchstone telling you the politics to follow.

ANyway look at the way crispy uses these quotes, creating the false impression that they refute the small-plane explanation, when in fact they do not:

" 'This was not ... a Learjet, Gulfstream something like that. It was a bigger plane than that.' Joel Sucherman, 9/11/01"

Sucherman, I have long maintained, probably did see the killer jet. Ron Harvey, crispy and other Bush apologists and pro-war others do not tell you that Sucherman also heard a sonic boom, which is of course a datum consistent with a fast stealth attacking fighter and not with a Boeing 757.

"...I saw a big silver plane and those double A's.' Mike Walter, 9/12/01"

Yep. He sure did. He saw the Boeing that disappeared into the flash and subsequent flame and smoke, only to land a mile away. Harvey wants you to think Walter is telling you that he saw the Boeing go into the Pentagon wall, when he only saw its approach from the Hotel and Naval Annex.

" 'Just as we got even with the Pentagon, I looked out to the front and saw, coming straight down the road at us, a huge jet plane clearly with American Airlines written on it, and it looked like it was coming in to hit us.' Mitch Mitchell, 9/13/01"

The killer jet and the Boeing converged upon the crash point -- the killer jet skimming the grass and the Boeing above 80 feet from the ground (Potomac floodplane) on which the Pentagon sits, having flown downward from over the Sheraton hotel and the five-story Naval Annex west of the crash.



In short, crispy's quotes prove nothing and are by themselves consistent with the small-plane explanation of events as well as any other.

And so dear old crispy has fired blanks at the small-plane theory, hoping that you would think they were lethal hits. And he has omitted addressing the most well-known and still-unassailed evidence and analysis behind the small-plane thesis: the security camera pictures.

Again and again in a dozen forums I have asked asked Ron Harvey and Sarah Roberts to give some answer -- any answer -- that dismisses the video-camera proof of the too-small plane, of the obvious nothing-else-but missile smoke trail, and the too-big too white-hot explosion twice as high as the Pentagon that is consistent only with high-explosives of a missile warhead -- the flash that aided the disappearing act of the Boeing over the roof of the Pentagon on its way to Reagan National one mile away.



Oh, but there is more; crispy attaches a postscript:


"Regarding fallacies posited by the no-plane or small-plane believers:"

"Pictures like the one above have been touted as photographic evidence no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, because of the absence of a discernible, plane-sized impact hole. One cannot be seen only because the stream of water obscures the hole."

Yes, but all the other pictures that do show the hole, crispy does not mention. Crispy shows one of the pictures that shows nothing and honestly(?) concludes from that that none of the pictures show anythingthing telling! Is he just throwing this in to make it look like he is being thorough in dealing with all evidence, when that is just what he is NOT doing?

"Then there is the oft-repeated claim that the Boeing would have had to pierce through six load-bearing walls. This is false. The plane struck between the first and second floors; those floors do not have gaps between the five rings as the top three floors do."

Another disingenuous stink bomb from crispy. I found out about the outer three rings adjoining at the lower floors in November of 2002. I admit I had been taking about 6 heavy walls being penetrated by the engine that broke through c-ring's first-floor wall. The discovery changed nothing of what the evidence we were building our case on relied on. The fact is irrelevant to the development of the proofs. No arguments supporting the small-plane explanation are based on the fact of the merging of the rings at the lower levels. The factoid buys crispy nothing.

"Seeking out and individually debunking each and every fallacious or illogical claim posited by those who maintain that the Pentagon was hit by something other than a Boeing 757-200 requires more effort than I want to devote to such an already apparently bogus scenario."

Yes, crispy, I too find it difficult to spend time writing these defenses of what should be obvious from just one of my evidence postings -- have a father dying of cancer and a daughter getting married next month and a wife falling apart under a sense of neglect -- yet I have had to come out of retirement people see your well crafted attack and get confused.

Crispy: "However, if concerned individuals would like me to refute some specific argument made by the "no-Boeing" crowd, or believe that the evidence presented thus far does not adequately demonstrate the infeasibility of the "no-Boeing" scenario, they may reach me at this email address. In that event, I will update this page with the argument (possibly including the email as well) alongside its refutation."

So you are a refutation service. You say you'll refute things before you even see them. Like I said you are a good politician, a guy loyal to a cause, a cause which requires, at the moment, refuting the small plane thesis.

Did he succeed,fellow Democrats????



Thanks, crispy. YOU OFFER TO REFUTE -- WELL HERE ARE ALL THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE SMALL PLANE THAT YOU DID NOT TOUCHE -- THERE ARE ABOUT FOURTEEN OF THEM, BUT SIX BASIC ONES -- READ THE FIRST ONE AND YOU WILL FIND LINKS TO THE OTHERS.


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagonconspiracy/message/9

Dick Eastman
No to Nader -- stay united -- stay with the truth.
---------------

Edwards-Sharpton would be a good ticket.

So would Kerry-Kucinich.

Those choices would really hobble the GOP campaign managers.