Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Explosive  dick eastman exposes victoria ashley and other fake 9-11 truthers
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Explosive dick eastman exposes victoria ashley and other fake 9-11 truthers

2,680
views

Published on


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,680
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 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 Rudkowski’s embezzlement of funds promised to 9/11 first responders and for Wearechange New York’s 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 story–literally 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 Rudkowski’s embezzlement of funds promised to 9/11 first responders and for Wearechange New York’s 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 story–literally 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 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.
  • 45. 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.
  • 46. 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
  • 47. 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.
  • 48. 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.
  • 49. 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.
  • 50. 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?
  • 51. 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
  • 52. 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
  • 53. 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.
  • 54. 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):
  • 55. 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.
  • 56. 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-
  • 57. 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:
  • 58. 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
  • 59. 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
  • 60. 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:
  • 61. 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
  • 62. 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
  • 63. 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
  • 64. 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".
  • 65. 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
  • 66. 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.
  • 67. 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.
  • 68. 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. .... Victoria Ashley: [her concluding remarks] . . . Hence the necessity of doing what for so many seems a massive waste of time: refuting the endless stream of baseless claims and nonsense permeating the movement of individuals seeking a full investigation into the 9/11/01 attacks. Whether these are claims that real jetliners never hit the WTC, that pods on the planes fired filles at the buildings, or that the plane at the Pentagon flew away and no one noticed, the efforts to refute these are an unfortunate necessity of the work to bring and hidden facts of the attacks to the public.
  • 69. Unfortunately, despite the broad rejection of CIT by much of the 9/11 activist community, event organizers are all too willing to feature hyped "mysteries" like PentaCon -- seemingly regardless of the absurdity of the films' methods, the demonstrable falseness of their claims, their effectiveness in polarizing activists, or the history of disruption by the filmmakers themselves. Whether such promotions reflect a misguided belief that such films help "grow the movement" because of the "excitement" they engender or whether they reflect a more deliberate form of "false flag 9/11 truth" the effect is the same: damaging the credibility and viability of 9/11 activist efforts by giving center stage to hoax material. Dick Eastman: Who can compete with a disinformer, a professional writer -- if she is not a completely fictional person -- like Victoria Ashley? The people who cover up the 9-11 crime are very good at what they are doing, as judged by their success. So I have done my duty in answering this person now that I have found her article four years and two months after she published it. If you want to read the last part of Ashley's article here is the URL of the web page I got his from. (It's illustrated.) http://911review.com/articles/ashley/pentacon_con.html Dick Eastman is a regular contributor to therebel.org.