The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroups
These Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To These Or Any Other
Newsgroups. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroups And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: "Dick Eastman"
Subject: Re: Dick Eastman's plea to the cyber community in the US -- we have a short window to really beat them
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:27:14 -0800
Organization: Advanced Telcom Group Inc. Internet Services
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:28:31 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
To: Washington Post
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 5:37 PM
You asked for proof.
Have you seen this:
The 9-11 Pentagon conspiracy is exposed, the inside-job
black-op proven by the evidence presented here. Three
independent proofs are presented. Each alone discredits
the phony frameup story and establishes the fact of a
second aircraft, a plane much different than the Boeing
that most witnesses saw and reported.
Proof #1: Disparate Approach Paths
The Boeing jetliner observed by many reliable witnesses
did not follow the track of physical damage left by the
actual killer jet.
Three points of physical damage left by the killer jet
disclose the true attack path.
Another set of four points, validated by many witnesses
who observed the attack from a variety of locations west
of the crash establish the path of the Boeing jetliner as it
approached the Pentagon.
The three critical points along the attack path of the
killer jet are
1) the first lamppost downed by the jet, which tells us that
the fuselage of the killer could not have been more than a few
dozen feet further than a wing's length from the fuselage;
2) the center of the hole on the second floor of the west wall,
the location designated by the civil engineers who conducted
a strucutural damage assessment as "column AA14;" and
3) the "exit" hole in the east wall of the Pentagon's "C-ring"
northeast of column AA14.
The four points delineating the overfly path of the Boeing are
1) " directly over" the Sheraton Hotel;
2) "directly over" the Naval Annex;
3) "over" the Citgo gas station and enough north of the gas
pumps as it crossed from west to east that the windows of
the starboard side of the plane could be directly seen by a
witness pumping gas.
These two paths are not the same path. While they converge
on pillar AA14, the do some from different angles. For
example, if the path of the killer jet is extended linearly back
from the downed lamppost we see that it misses the Sheraton
Hotel by nearly a quarter mile.
This result eliminates the possibility that the killer jet was the
same plane as the Boeing observed by witnesses and it
supports the thesis that the Boeing overflew the crash,
disappearing to observers in the west against the direct
sunlight from the east, but also past the intense white flash
of the initial explosion and subsequent rising intense smoke
and flame of burning jet fuel and other materials -- a magicians
trick that was over in three seconds, in the time it took for the
Boeing reach a point closer to the airport than to the crash.
Click here to view the evidence and analysis of Proof #1:
Proof #2: The wrong imprint.
The damage done to the Pentagon is inconsistent with the
damage that would have been caused by a crashing Boeing 757
-- the "imprint" imparted to the building is too small, there is no
clear-through penetration where a starboard engine would
have had to have hit; there is damage that is consistent with
a blast rather than collison with a solid object and that at places
and excludes the possibility of a two-engine attacker.
View Proof #2 evidence here
Proof #3: Security camera shows the wrong plane,
the wrong explosion and the disparate trail of a
The security camera located north of the attack confirms what
we already know from witness accounts and the damage trail
and from the attack's imprint on the wall of the Pentagon. The
five pictures indicate by simple inspection
1) a plane that is too short,
2) a trail of missile smoke leading directly to,
3) the white-hot explosion consistent with a missile
warhead and totally inconsistent with an aluminum
plane carrying jet-fuel kerosene hitting a limestone,
brick and concrete office building.
View Proof #23evidence here
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The alt.politics.org.fbi Newsgroup