Sent: Thursday, April 18, 02 11:24 AM
Subject: Dear Editors: D.o.D. video shows F-16, preceeded by fired
missile, not a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon Sept. 11 -- establishing
"911" as a frame-up (scientists and military aviators share views)
April 18, 02
Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor,
Before you add your own scoffings at
Rep. Cynthia McKinney's
call for a Congressional investigation into evidence of prior knowledge
of the attack within the administration, I suggest you look at this
evidence of both prior knowledge and complicity in the Pentagon
attack on September 11, 01.
Here is the direct visual evidence
supplied by the D.o.D. that the
Pentagon was attacked not by a crashbombing Boeing 757, but by
a remotely-controlled F-16 Falcon that approached horizonally at
feet using automatic ground-countour-hugging guidance and, no
more than two seconds before its own impact also fired an air-to-
ground missile into the Pentagon ahead of its own collision.
http://www.bosankoe.btinternet.co.uk/pentagon.gif
Pay close attention to 1) the F-16
silhouette; 2) the white
plume of the missile being fired; 3) the super-white-hot initial blast
characteristic of the high-explosives of a ground to air missile and not
of burning jet or helicopter fuel --
David Bosankoe of the U.K. has enlarged
a section
of the clip of the Pentagon attack event taken by
security video camera and released by the Department
of Defense, but he has also gathered other supporting
evidence that you may review at:
http://www.bosankoe.btinternet.co.uk/
In addition, far ranging debate on
this topic has been
conducted in the uk.politics.crime Usenet newsgroup,
which you may access at http://groups.google.com/
and typing in uk.politics.crime.
After close examination I am convinced that the clip does supports neither the official story of a Boeing 757 hitting the building, nor the "French "where's the plane?" site story that "no plane at all" was involved in the deadly explosions.
It is also significant that the one pilot who claimed to have witnessed a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon also claimed that the airliner "dived" into the side of the building --and so by the D.o.D.'s own video he is discredited.
Here are two letters relevant to this topic, the first dealing with the Pentagon attack deception and the second in reply to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's attack on Rep. Cynthia McKinney's after her call for an investigation into the events of September 11.
Dick Eastman
223 S. 64th Ave.
Yakima, Washington 98908
(509) 965-4893
Letter #1:
Dear Mr McNicoll,
A colleague of mine in Australia faxed to me the paragraph in your column in The Australian of April 5, 02 (p.11). For the benefit of other readers of this message, which will soon be appearing on my Serendipity website, I quote the first half of your paragraph:
Big bang theory
FURTHER to the conspiracy theory --
that no aircraft hit the Pentagon last September -- which is being expounded
by French author Thierry Meyssan in his book 'The Frightening Fraud'. Should
you wish to see some of the pictures of the Pentagon attack which have a large
number of French citizens no longer believing the official US government story,
you can access them online by the more direct URL:
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
It should be noted that this site does
not say that no aircraft
hit the Pentagon. It could be taken to suggest that the damage
was caused by a truck bomb, but a careful inspection will reveal
that the site suggests only that the damage was NOT caused
by a Boeing 757.
The thesis by the French author is
either mistaken, or it is another
instance of what Carol Valentine has called "the fake opposition"
(see http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/anti-war.htm).
As one commentator, Dick Eastman, puts it:
>The French "no-plane"
thesis is disinformation --
>it is the sending in of a buffoon to refute a clown.
>It's an old trick -- if the "official"
version is absurd
>and readily dismissed by simple direct inspection of
>physical evidence -- then the deception can only be
>defended by "puffing" a counter explanation that is even
>more absurd.
Or in other words, an alternative explanation is presented which purports to
deny the truth of the official story, but the alternative is either grossly
implausible or is easily refuted by reference to the evidence. The discrediting
of the alternative is then used to support the official version.
The problem with Meyssan's thesis is that a plane actually did hit the Pentagon -- but it wasn't a Boeing 757. As Dick Eastman has pointed out, what actually happened is that a (probably remotely controlled) F-16 fighter jet flew into the Pentagon, hitting it a moment after it released a missile. You can see this in the images released by the Pentagon -- http://www.bosankoe.btinternet.co.uk/pentagon.gif
Frame 1: The outline of a fighter jet, probably an F-16, is visible toward the right of the picture. A larger version of this frame can be viewed at http://www.thepowerhour.com/pentgallery/images/pentani.jpg
Frame 2: A huge, white-hot, fireball erupts. Such an intensely hot fireball would not result from the ignition of jet fuel but would result from the detonation of a missile carrying a high-explosive warhead.
Frames 3, 4 and 5: Here you see the red fireball resulting from the impact of the jet.
The damage to the Pentagon is not consistent with an impact by a 757 Boeing jetliner but is consistent with the explosion of a missile plus the impact of an F-16 jet.
So if it was an F-16 jet which hit the Pentagon, what happened to AA Flight 77, the Boeing jet which, according to the official story, hit the Pentagon? And what happened to the passengers on board this jet?
The answer has been given by an informant of Carol Valentine (see http://www.public-action.com/911/bumble.html), from which we may construct the following account (in part) of what happened on September 11th:
1. Some time after Flight 77 takes off its pilots are informed that the U.S. is under attack and that they are to shut down their transponder and land their plane at the nearest military base (directions to the base are given). The pilots obey this order.
2. The Twin Towers are hit by planes (but not AA Flight 11 or UA Flight 175, which are also diverted to the same military base) and shortly after are brought down in a controlled demolition by means as yet undetermined, but possibly by explosives within the buildings.
3. An F-16, probably remotely controlled, approaches the Pentagon at ground level, fires a missile, and a split-second later crashes into the building.
4. The official (pre-written) story of a simultaneous hijacking of four Boeing passenger jets by Arab terrorists acting under orders from Osama bin Laden is released to the U.S. mainstream media and promoted non-stop by the media whores.
5. The passengers from AA Flight 77, AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175 are herded onto UA Flight 175, which (as with the other three flights) has been ordered to land at the same military base.
6. UA Flight 175 takes off from the military base and flies toward Washington. It is shot down by a U.S. Air Force fighter jet over Pennsylvania. All passengers and crew from all four "hijacked" planes (other than those who are part of the operation) are killed.
Thus those who planned and carried
out the September 11th attacks not only caused the deaths of about 3,000 people
in the Twin Towers and a few hundred military personnel at the Pentagon, but
also deliberately murdered about 0 people who were on board the four Boeing
jetliners to eliminate witnesses to their "high crimes". We may reasonably
guess at who they are (George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld come
to mind). If the identities of the perpetrators are ever established they know
they will go before a firing squad. Therefore we can be sure that (unless they
are removed from their present positions of influence) they will do whatever
they deem necessary to escape detection, even if this means causing the deaths
of yet more thousands of American citizens in "terrorist" attacks.
Regards,
Peter Meyer
Letter #2:
To the Editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
My Opinion on the Way You are Handling the McKinney Case
by Paul Walker
I would appreciate it very much if you would cease the politically-motivated
dirt-digging and attacks on Ms McKinney's character and instead do an objective
jounalistic investigation into the claims that she has put forward. No matter
what her motives may be, the facts are the facts.
Fact: Carlyle Group directly benefits from an eternal Orwellian war against the "Evil Ones".
Fact: The bin Ladins and the Bushes have been in bed finacially raking in hundreds of millions together on big oil, construction and defense contracts for decades.
Fact: The "War on Terrorism" has been planned for several years in the back rooms of the Council on Foreign Relations as a pretext for control of the Caspian Basin oil reserves (see Brzezinski, Grand Chessboard).
Fact: The CIA supervises the Pakistani ISI intelligence who are instrumental in funding and training terrorists all over the Eurasia and the Middle East.
Fact: Clinton had numerous opportunities to nail bin Ladin and refused to do it.
Fact: Bin Ladin was, and still is a CIA-ISI pointman/assett.
Fact: The CIA put the murderous Taliban into power (a specialty of theirs) in 1996 and funded them (and bin Ladin) right up through last summer.
Fact: The CIA met with bin Ladin in July in Dubai (Le Figaro)
Fact: The US government had not only prior knowledge of the attacks of September 11th, but deliberately created all the necessary conditions for it to happen. For historical precedents see, National Security Archives for the Operation Northwoods document and Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnet.
Fact: The media is chockfull of gutless, spineless shills, operative minions, and cheerleeding propagandists who are lying to the people, complicit in the attacks on both the WTC and on our Constitutional rights and couldn't whip up an honest investigative piece to save their souls.
So get your facts straight and start telling the truth if you have any patriotism, humanity, guts or integrity left.
I challenge any of you jounalist shills
out there to refute any of the points I have made.
Paul Walker
Santa Barbara, CA
-----
Finally, I recommend these 11 September
frame-up criminal investigation
sites:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wtc.htm
http://www.copvcia.com Michael C. Ruppert
http://www.bighula.com/copvcia/
(mirror of above)
http://www.skolnicksreport.com
Sherman H. Skolnick
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/
http://www.rense.com Jeff Rense
http://www.bosankoe.btinternet.co.uk
http://www.narconews.com
http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/tradecencrimes/
http://www.infowars.com/resources.html
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/
http://www.truthout.com
http://www.humanunderground.com
