Bertie the Bunyip wrote in message ...
DarkMatter wrote in
:


Dark Matter has won the day over Berie, Just a Cowboy, Nesbitt, Agent
86 and the rest of Flocker Kibbutz 69-911

These guys are expert shills in getting people mad -- they use those
skills to get democrats so mad that they will forget what they were
discussing and the importance of what they were trying to prove in
order to discredit them by their rage -- this is the old zionist
game -- get people so frustrated and emotional by their freeping and
flocking that we loose or temper -- which gives them victory without
firing a single valid arguments.

Anyway, the good goys have won -- the use of an F-16 armed with an
air=to-=ground missile in the attack on the Pentagon has been
thoroughly exposed and EVERY argument answered.

Let me re-cap it all for the reader (and I hope readers will cut and
paste this re-cap and send it around the world -- because it spells
the end of organized crime government and zionist psy-op control over
public discourse.

Don't take my word for it -- look at the proof I lay out below:

Let me recap:

------------

From: (Everyman)
Newsgroups: alt.disasters.aviation,uk.politics.crime,uk.politi cs.parliament,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.greens,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Pentagon frameup investigation is conclusive -- 9-11 was
a frameup Here is all the proof a grand jury will need.
References:









NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.174.233.81
Message-ID:

Samson had use for pillars. Here is mine.

We have won the debate. The mass-murder frameup is proven. The
evidence -- even the evidence presented by the other side, supports
the small-plane thesis and discredits the official (frameup, coverup)
version of the attack on the Pentagon.

Here is a particularly instructive summary message from a newsgroup
thread:


Gentlemen:

In this thread we have Ralph saying of picture #1 of the 5 sequential
pictures released by the DoD:

" Due coloration/contrast of background the
fuselage blends into the background while for
the same reason the vertical stablizer is visible
as a "Blur"."

But the shape of the tail fin is clearly visible.

Also the missile plume is unmistakable trailing to the right at just
the right level below the tail fin to correspond with missile fired by
an F-16. You know that planes cannot penetrate walls like the
Pentagon, not Boeings and not F-16s -- a missile was needed to
soften the wall so that the small plane would enter without leaving
telltale debris on the grass.

In this thread we have also seen Fox news quoted on the subject of
what is in the first picture of the sequence:

The first photo shows a small, blurry white object
near the upper right corner — possibly the plane just
a few feet above the ground.

Clearly they mistook the smoke trail of the air-to-ground missile for
the plane, and missed spotting the tail fin completely.


And we have MSNBC reporting:

NBC?s Jim Miklaszewski explains that the sequence of five photos,
taken from a Department of Defense security camera, shows the Boeing
757 hitting the ground
an instant before it plows into the building and explodes in a
deadly fireball.

Clearly the smoke of the missile was misinterpreted by many as the
plane hitting the ground and raising smoke. But we know that the
planes trajectory was level and we know that the grass at this
location was unharmed.

In this thread we have someone remark:

Now explain to me the eyewitnesses who saw the plane and jumped from
ttheir cars as it took down lightpoles.

But the fact is that none of the witnesses saw the Boeing take down
the poles -- in every case a deduction is made after the fact, based
on their assumption that the Boeing did it -- but I have talked to
witnesses who prove that the Boeing was nowhere near the poles, that
the Boeing came over the Annex, they it flew by Lagasse from west to
east to the north of him, when the poles were slightly south of him
from his postion at the Gulf gas station.

BUT WHAT BRINGS ME HERE IS TO TELL YOU ALL ONCE AND FOR ALL

The American Society of Civil Engineers Pentagon Building Performance
Report backs up small-plane finding --- DISPROVES A BOEING CRASH

Again and again on this thread I see statements like this:

Well, the whole thing is painstakingly documented in the ASCE report.
Of course, the retards don't want to read it, since it instantly
debunks every single one of their rants.

Except that the ASCE does nothing of the kind. In fact, as I show you
below, the ASCE report supports the small-plane thesis and discredits
the official ( frameup/coverup) story.

Let's look at it together:

The American Society of Civil Engineers in their Pentagon Building
Performance Report which reports the different levels of damage done
to the pillars in the first story of the crash region presents
information that supports the photo evidence showing that NO STARBOARD
WING ENGINE OF A BOEING 575 ENTERED THE PENTAGON.

As you read the report and examin the diagrams and simulations keep
this color code of levels of damage to columns in mind (note:
"Spalling" means that chips have been knocked off the pillar.)

Pink squares: In collapsed area. Presumed to have significant
inpairment

Red squares: Missing, broken, disconnected, or otherwise without
remaining function

Blue squares: Impacted with large deformation and significant
impairment of function

Green squares: Heavy cracking and spalling with some impairment of
function

Yellow squares: Cracking and spalling with no significant impairment
of function.

https://www.asce.org/pdf/illustrations.pdf

(Be sure to use the zoom feature of your Adobe Acrobat etc. to read
the legends of these diagrams)

Let us examin this graphical summary of the engineers' findings.

Illustration A -- A cut-away simulation showing the arrangement of
pillars , numbered 1 through 34 across the outer wall and rows AA
(outer wall), A, B, C ... through O (15 rows) on the first floor as
you go back 220 ft. to the wall of the C-ring exit hole which is
between pillars 5-0 and 7-0 (there being only odd number pillars
behind the first row on the outer wall, i.e., twice as many)

The nose of the killer jet hit pillar 14-AA on the outer wall. The
distance from pillar 14-AA in the outer wall (E-ring) to exit hole
between columns 5-O and 7-0 in the C-ring wall is 310 feet.

But what do the engineers tell us about the damage to the Pentagon?

All the investigators did was enter the crash site for one day of
observations AFTER THE BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED OVER THE ORIGINAL CRASH
HOLE, examining each of the pillars and checking off its condition
according to this checklist:

Pink squares: In collapsed area. Presumed to have significant
inpairment

Red squares: Missing, broken, disconnected, or otherwise without
remaining function

Green squares: Heavy cracking and spalling with some impairment of
function

Yellow squares: Cracking and spalling with no significant impairment
of function.

The fact is that whereas the small-plane explaination is supported by
photos of the outer wall crash hole, pre-collapse, as having interior
wall still standing to the right of the hole where the fuselage
entered, the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance report DOES IN FACT
SUPPORT THE SMALL-PLANE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE BY INDICATING THAT THE
PILLARS TO THE RIGHT OF THE NOSE-ENTRY WERE STILL STANDING. They are
shown leaning out, indicating that they were not knocked down --
(they are drawn in the diagram as leaning, indicating that they were
"disconnected or broken" but not missing or knocked down (missing
pillars are marked by a red spot, knocked down pillars are shown
lying on their sides in the diagram).


And as for the damage alone the 310 feet from AA 14 to the missing
columns (red spots) are extremely close to the center line of the
path. MOST NOTABLE IS THE FACT THAT DOUBLE COLUMN 11-D WHICH IS AN
INTERIOR COLUMN HOLDING UP THE INTERIOR BACK WALL OF E-RING JUST TO
THE RIGHT OF WHERE THE FUSELAGE PASSED (ACCORDING TO THE ENGINEER'S
DOTTED LINE FROM AA-14 TO THE HOLE IN C-RING) That column is not
knocked down or missing, but only is deformed with significant
impairment of function. And on the starboard side of the fuselage no
more pillars are knocked down, whereas in the path of the fuselage and
to the port side from center there are seven more red-marked pillars
that are damaged (missing, broken, disconnected). (See Illustration
B)


But this is totally consistent with the fact that the engine popped
out between pillars 5-O and 7-O -- it is totally consistent with the
fact that the killer jet was a single-engine, engine-in-fuselage
aircraft.

So we see that on the starboard side -- where we have -p[hotos of the
interior walls still standing before the collapse -- indicating that
there was no starboard wing engine -- we now also can point to the
structural report of the American Society of Civil Engineers, who show
that the exterior pillars were not downed to the right of the hole
made by the fuselage -- and that the engineers could make no
determination of which of the second and third rows of pillars (rows
A and B after the exterior row AA) were damaged or not, because of the
subsequent collapse that destroyed this evidence. BUT THE EVIDENCE
THE ENGINEERS WERE ABLE TO PRESENT IS ENTIRELY SUPPORTIVE OF THE SMALL
PLANE THESIS, AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE OFFICIAL STORY THAT AN
AIRLINER WITH A MASSIVE STARBOARD WING ENGINE ENDERED THE BUILDING --
IT WAS DEFINITELY A SINGLE ENGINE PLANE AS ALL THE OTHER HARD
EVIDENCE IS ALSO INDICATING.


And here is other relevant information:


What BB does not want you to learn is that 9-11 was a mass-murder
frameup and that the evidence showing that an F-16 that fired a
missile into the target ahead of its own crash and that the Boeing 757
at the same moment overflew the Pentagon banked right over the 14th
street bridge on the Potomac and landed at Reagan National only one
mile from the crash. The flash and subsequent smoke and fire aided
the Boeing in moving away without detection. And before the noise of
the crash could reach the Washington monumnet, the Boeing was closer
to Reagan National than to the attack scene. At this time all planes
were being called down. The Boeing merely hit the tarmac and taxied
to a hanger where, doubtless, in the following weeks while the airport
was shut down, the plane met the same fate as BMWs that are stolen by
international car theives.

The Fi16 approached at such terrific speed (some heard a sonic boom
before the crash) and so low (ground hugging aircraft are very
difficult to see against a busy background of buildings -- the killer
jet may have been dark so it would resemble the shadow of an aircraft
from the sky. At any rate, all eyes were on the Boeing as it flew
over the Naval Annex, so that people missed the smaller jet in its
stealth approach from the southwest.

All of the above, with all of the details that I have left out, may be
found at the following sites:

Dick Eastman 30 evidence articles (photos, diagrams, ATC reports,
witness accounts etc.)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-d...ameup/messages

ANd here is another statement of the same thesis:

Eastman-APFN:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm


Other investigators fill in other aspects of this mass-murder by
Administration neo-con zionists in the Defense Department


http://www.freedomfiles.org/war (Neils Groenveld et al.)
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm
http://www.911dossier.co.uk/ (Ian Henshaw et al.)

http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/
http://www.the-movement.com/Hijackers/Agents.htm (Frank Levin)
http://www.communitycurrency.org/pi.html

http://www.waronfreedom.mediamonitors.net/index.html
http://www.911timeline.net/
http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/PentagonCrash.html

http://www.tomflocco.com/bush_may_invoke_9.htm
http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html
http://www.etherzone.com

http://www.antiwar.com
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html#preface
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/

http://digipressetmp4.teaser.fr/site....php?dosnum=60
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero....htmhttp://www.
http://asile.org/citoyens/numero13/i...gone/index.htm

http://alberta.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/4578.php
http://hamilton.indymedia.org/front....&group=webcast
http://buffalo.indymedia.org/display...rticle_id=3265

========================

Also something new:

From a French investigator I got these questions:

Are you sure that Sgt Lagasse is able to make the difference beetween
"port" and "starboard". As I teach sailing, I can tell you lot of people
get confused with that... And Lagasse doesn't work in the navy

Other question : Lagasse says he was fueling his car near "barraks K".
Would it be somewhere else than Citgo gas station N 9.5 E 17.5 ? For
example N 4.1 E 9.4


He did. He called me on the phone after the interview.

He said he saw the plane from the starboard side as it passed by him.
I checked his knowlege of starboard and port and he convinced me that
he knew the difference and that he has flown aircraft.


After he saw the actual Boeing pass by him, he dived in his car and
grabbed the police radio --

But then, after looking up again, he saw the the crash of the killer
jet (he says it was still the Boeing he was seeing -- but now from
behind the plane and at an angle so that he could just see narrowly
the "port side" -- and I checked it on the map and this is exactly
what he should have seen of the killer plane as it hit goiving his
location at the gas station.

I conclude that he saw the Boeing pass him -- saw its starboard
(right) side, but then, when he looked away and looked back, he saw
the killer jet hitting exactly as we know it did hit and exactly as it
should have looked from his position at the gas station.

He also said that the plane passed him going from left to right,
indicating that he was looking at the starboard -- had he viewed the
known path of the killer jet from the gas station he would have seen
it pass from right to left and seen the port side.


He explains this by saying that the plane yawed, that it flew not
pointing straight ahead, which he ascribes to the tail rudder being
turned extremely to one side. I believe that this is his mind
attemping to reconcile the impossible transition of observed
orientation of aircraft -- seeing first the Boeing from one position,
and then the killer for a split second, at a completely different
angle.

When Lagasse phoned I took my American Automobile Association road map
out and, checking street names against his story located, with him,
the gas station as inside the curve to the north made by the columbia
pike after it passes the Annex, that he was at the gas station inside
that curve in the road, exactly where the gulf station is. The gas
stations are one and the same --

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Rolly The Pervert" wrote in
:


"Uncle John" wrote in message
.. .
"Scott Vernon" wrote in news:bfu5qk$i817c$1@ID-
154502.news.uni-berlin.de:

no can do, I have it Kill filed.

good thinking



So Bertie, who are our new friends?

A rather dim lot, truth be told, slow on the uptake and with extremely
questionable sexual appetites, but amusing with it.

Oh, you are just jealous!

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Rolly The Pervert" wrote in
:


"Uncle John" wrote in message
.. .
"Scott Vernon" wrote in news:bfu5qk$i817c$1@ID-
154502.news.uni-berlin.de:

no can do, I have it Kill filed.

good thinking



So Bertie, who are our new friends?

A rather dim lot, truth be told, slow on the uptake and with extremely
questionable sexual appetites, but amusing with it.

Bit like one of those Cheesy Brit sex-comedy movies from the '60s.

Or the Democrats during the Clinton era.

Richard

lucat bene, der Bertie the Bunyip goh, a hunnert truxx inero,
sumwit kowz n' sumwit duxx on Sat, 26 Jul 2003 03:10:41 +0000 (UTC):

"Scott Vernon" wrote in news:bfsr40$idirs$2@ID-
154502.news.uni-berlin.de:

You really should stop x-posting, Mooron.

you really should stop x-posting Scotty.

you really should stop x-posting bertram.

Bertie

Sv

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
...

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
| Didn't notice really.

You really should pay more attention Bertie!

"Richard Smith" wrote:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote: "Rolly The Pervert"
wrote:
So Bertie, who are our new friends?

A rather dim lot, truth be told, slow on the uptake and with extremely
questionable sexual appetites, but amusing with it.

Bit like one of those Cheesy Brit sex-comedy movies from the '60s.

Or the Democrats during the Clinton era.

Richard

Hello, Richard.

How did you find me here? I bet you must have followed Bert here. guffaw

Have you wore out that National Geographic video of me yet?

Why don't you have the nerve to post my response to not only your miss
attribution below but your miss interpretation of the facts. There were
remains of a Boeing 757 in the bldg. Where are the remains of the a/c you
allege did the deed?
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF Type

"Everyman" wrote in message
om...
In this thread we have Ralph saying of picture #1 of the 5 sequential
pictures released by the DoD:

" Due coloration/contrast of background the
fuselage blends into the background while for
the same reason the vertical stablizer is visible
as a "Blur"."

But the shape of the tail fin is clearly visible.

Also the missile plume is unmistakable trailing to the right at just
the right level below the tail fin to correspond with missile fired by
an F-16. You know that planes cannot penetrate walls like the
Pentagon, not Boeings and not F-16s -- a missile was needed to
soften the wall so that the small plane would enter without leaving
telltale debris on the grass.

In this thread we have also seen Fox news quoted on the subject of
what is in the first picture of the sequence:

The first photo shows a small, blurry white object
near the upper right corner - possibly the plane just
a few feet above the ground.

Clearly they mistook the smoke trail of the air-to-ground missile for
the plane, and missed spotting the tail fin completely.


And we have MSNBC reporting:

NBC?s Jim Miklaszewski explains that the sequence of five photos,
taken from a Department of Defense security camera, shows the Boeing
757 hitting the ground
an instant before it plows into the building and explodes in a
deadly fireball.

Clearly the smoke of the missile was misinterpreted by many as the
plane hitting the ground and raising smoke. But we know that the
planes trajectory was level and we know that the grass at this
location was unharmed.

In this thread we have someone remark:

Now explain to me the eyewitnesses who saw the plane and jumped from
ttheir cars as it took down lightpoles.

But the fact is that none of the witnesses saw the Boeing take down
the poles -- in every case a deduction is made after the fact, based
on their assumption that the Boeing did it -- but I have talked to
witnesses who prove that the Boeing was nowhere near the poles, that
the Boeing came over the Annex, they it flew by Lagasse from west to
east to the north of him, when the poles were slightly south of him
from his postion at the Gulf gas station.

BUT WHAT BRINGS ME HERE IS TO TELL YOU ALL ONCE AND FOR ALL

The American Society of Civil Engineers Pentagon Building Performance
Report backs up small-plane finding --- DISPROVES A BOEING CRASH

Again and again on this thread I see statements like this:

Well, the whole thing is painstakingly documented in the ASCE report.
Of course, the retards don't want to read it, since it instantly
debunks every single one of their rants.

Except that the ASCE does nothing of the kind. In fact, as I show you
below, the ASCE report supports the small-plane thesis and discredits
the official ( frameup/coverup) story.

Let's look at it together:

The American Society of Civil Engineers in their Pentagon Building
Performance Report which reports the different levels of damage done
to the pillars in the first story of the crash region presents
information that supports the photo evidence showing that NO STARBOARD
WING ENGINE OF A BOEING 575 ENTERED THE PENTAGON.

As you read the report and examin the diagrams and simulations keep
this color code of levels of damage to columns in mind (note:
"Spalling" means that chips have been knocked off the pillar.)

Pink squares: In collapsed area. Presumed to have significant
inpairment

Red squares: Missing, broken, disconnected, or otherwise without
remaining function

Blue squares: Impacted with large deformation and significant
impairment of function

Green squares: Heavy cracking and spalling with some impairment of
function

Yellow squares: Cracking and spalling with no significant impairment
of function.

https://www.asce.org/pdf/illustrations.pdf

(Be sure to use the zoom feature of your Adobe Acrobat etc. to read
the legends of these diagrams)

Let us examin this graphical summary of the engineers' findings.

Illustration A -- A cut-away simulation showing the arrangement of
pillars , numbered 1 through 34 across the outer wall and rows AA
(outer wall), A, B, C ... through O (15 rows) on the first floor as
you go back 220 ft. to the wall of the C-ring exit hole which is
between pillars 5-0 and 7-0 (there being only odd number pillars
behind the first row on the outer wall, i.e., twice as many)

The nose of the killer jet hit pillar 14-AA on the outer wall. The
distance from pillar 14-AA in the outer wall (E-ring) to exit hole
between columns 5-O and 7-0 in the C-ring wall is 310 feet.

But what do the engineers tell us about the damage to the Pentagon?

All the investigators did was enter the crash site for one day of
observations AFTER THE BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED OVER THE ORIGINAL CRASH
HOLE, examining each of the pillars and checking off its condition
according to this checklist:

Pink squares: In collapsed area. Presumed to have significant
inpairment

Red squares: Missing, broken, disconnected, or otherwise without
remaining function

Green squares: Heavy cracking and spalling with some impairment of
function

Yellow squares: Cracking and spalling with no significant impairment
of function.

The fact is that whereas the small-plane explaination is supported by
photos of the outer wall crash hole, pre-collapse, as having interior
wall still standing to the right of the hole where the fuselage
entered, the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance report DOES IN FACT
SUPPORT THE SMALL-PLANE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE BY INDICATING THAT THE
PILLARS TO THE RIGHT OF THE NOSE-ENTRY WERE STILL STANDING. They are
shown leaning out, indicating that they were not knocked down --
(they are drawn in the diagram as leaning, indicating that they were
"disconnected or broken" but not missing or knocked down (missing
pillars are marked by a red spot, knocked down pillars are shown
lying on their sides in the diagram).


And as for the damage alone the 310 feet from AA 14 to the missing
columns (red spots) are extremely close to the center line of the
path. MOST NOTABLE IS THE FACT THAT DOUBLE COLUMN 11-D WHICH IS AN
INTERIOR COLUMN HOLDING UP THE INTERIOR BACK WALL OF E-RING JUST TO
THE RIGHT OF WHERE THE FUSELAGE PASSED (ACCORDING TO THE ENGINEER'S
DOTTED LINE FROM AA-14 TO THE HOLE IN C-RING) That column is not
knocked down or missing, but only is deformed with significant
impairment of function. And on the starboard side of the fuselage no
more pillars are knocked down, whereas in the path of the fuselage and
to the port side from center there are seven more red-marked pillars
that are damaged (missing, broken, disconnected). (See Illustration
B)


But this is totally consistent with the fact that the engine popped
out between pillars 5-O and 7-O -- it is totally consistent with the
fact that the killer jet was a single-engine, engine-in-fuselage
aircraft.

So we see that on the starboard side -- where we have -p[hotos of the
interior walls still standing before the collapse -- indicating that
there was no starboard wing engine -- we now also can point to the
structural report of the American Society of Civil Engineers, who show
that the exterior pillars were not downed to the right of the hole
made by the fuselage -- and that the engineers could make no
determination of which of the second and third rows of pillars (rows
A and B after the exterior row AA) were damaged or not, because of the
subsequent collapse that destroyed this evidence. BUT THE EVIDENCE
THE ENGINEERS WERE ABLE TO PRESENT IS ENTIRELY SUPPORTIVE OF THE SMALL
PLANE THESIS, AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE OFFICIAL STORY THAT AN
AIRLINER WITH A MASSIVE STARBOARD WING ENGINE ENDERED THE BUILDING --
IT WAS DEFINITELY A SINGLE ENGINE PLANE AS ALL THE OTHER HARD
EVIDENCE IS ALSO INDICATING.


And here is other relevant information:


What BB does not want you to learn is that 9-11 was a mass-murder
frameup and that the evidence showing that an F-16 that fired a
missile into the target ahead of its own crash and that the Boeing 757
at the same moment overflew the Pentagon banked right over the 14th
street bridge on the Potomac and landed at Reagan National only one
mile from the crash. The flash and subsequent smoke and fire aided
the Boeing in moving away without detection. And before the noise of
the crash could reach the Washington monumnet, the Boeing was closer
to Reagan National than to the attack scene. At this time all planes
were being called down. The Boeing merely hit the tarmac and taxied
to a hanger where, doubtless, in the following weeks while the airport
was shut down, the plane met the same fate as BMWs that are stolen by
international car theives.

The Fi16 approached at such terrific speed (some heard a sonic boom
before the crash) and so low (ground hugging aircraft are very
difficult to see against a busy background of buildings -- the killer
jet may have been dark so it would resemble the shadow of an aircraft
from the sky. At any rate, all eyes were on the Boeing as it flew
over the Naval Annex, so that people missed the smaller jet in its
stealth approach from the southwest.

All of the above, with all of the details that I have left out, may be
found at the following sites:

Dick Eastman 30 evidence articles (photos, diagrams, ATC reports,
witness accounts etc.)


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-d...rameup/message
s

ANd here is another statement of the same thesis:

Eastman-APFN:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm


Other investigators fill in other aspects of this mass-murder by
Administration neo-con zionists in the Defense Department


http://www.freedomfiles.org/war (Neils Groenveld et al.)
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm
http://www.911dossier.co.uk/ (Ian Henshaw et al.)

http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/
http://www.the-movement.com/Hijackers/Agents.htm (Frank Levin)
http://www.communitycurrency.org/pi.html

http://www.waronfreedom.mediamonitors.net/index.html
http://www.911timeline.net/
http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/PentagonCrash.html

http://www.tomflocco.com/bush_may_invoke_9.htm
http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html
http://www.etherzone.com

http://www.antiwar.com
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html#preface
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/

http://digipressetmp4.teaser.fr/site....php?dosnum=60

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero....htmhttp://www.
http://asile.org/citoyens/numero13/i...gone/index.htm

http://alberta.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/4578.php
http://hamilton.indymedia.org/front....&group=webcast
http://buffalo.indymedia.org/display...rticle_id=3265

========================

Also something new:

From a French investigator I got these questions:

Are you sure that Sgt Lagasse is able to make the difference beetween
"port" and "starboard". As I teach sailing, I can tell you lot of people
get confused with that... And Lagasse doesn't work in the navy

Other question : Lagasse says he was fueling his car near "barraks K".
Would it be somewhere else than Citgo gas station N 9.5 E 17.5 ? For
example N 4.1 E 9.4


He did. He called me on the phone after the interview.

He said he saw the plane from the starboard side as it passed by him.
I checked his knowlege of starboard and port and he convinced me that
he knew the difference and that he has flown aircraft.


After he saw the actual Boeing pass by him, he dived in his car and
grabbed the police radio --

But then, after looking up again, he saw the the crash of the killer
jet (he says it was still the Boeing he was seeing -- but now from
behind the plane and at an angle so that he could just see narrowly
the "port side" -- and I checked it on the map and this is exactly
what he should have seen of the killer plane as it hit goiving his
location at the gas station.

I conclude that he saw the Boeing pass him -- saw its starboard
(right) side, but then, when he looked away and looked back, he saw
the killer jet hitting exactly as we know it did hit and exactly as it
should have looked from his position at the gas station.

He also said that the plane passed him going from left to right,
indicating that he was looking at the starboard -- had he viewed the
known path of the killer jet from the gas station he would have seen
it pass from right to left and seen the port side.


He explains this by saying that the plane yawed, that it flew not
pointing straight ahead, which he ascribes to the tail rudder being
turned extremely to one side. I believe that this is his mind
attemping to reconcile the impossible transition of observed
orientation of aircraft -- seeing first the Boeing from one position,
and then the killer for a split second, at a completely different
angle.

When Lagasse phoned I took my American Automobile Association road map
out and, checking street names against his story located, with him,
the gas station as inside the curve to the north made by the columbia
pike after it passes the Annex, that he was at the gas station inside
that curve in the road, exactly where the gulf station is. The gas
stations are one and the same --

Why don't you post all the "Goggle" references for this thread, not just the
ones you make up by cutting/pasting to serve your purposes. Do you still
think contrails are an attempt by the government to poison many?
Ralph Nesbitt
Professional FD/CFR/ARFF type
"Everyman" wrote in message
om...
Bertie the Bunyip wrote in message
...
DarkMatter wrote in
:


Dark Matter has won the day over Berie, Just a Cowboy, Nesbitt, Agent
86 and the rest of Flocker Kibbutz 69-911

These guys are expert shills in getting people mad -- they use those
skills to get democrats so mad that they will forget what they were
discussing and the importance of what they were trying to prove in
order to discredit them by their rage -- this is the old zionist
game -- get people so frustrated and emotional by their freeping and
flocking that we loose or temper -- which gives them victory without
firing a single valid arguments.

Anyway, the good goys have won -- the use of an F-16 armed with an
air=to-=ground missile in the attack on the Pentagon has been
thoroughly exposed and EVERY argument answered.

Let me re-cap it all for the reader (and I hope readers will cut and
paste this re-cap and send it around the world -- because it spells
the end of organized crime government and zionist psy-op control over
public discourse.

Don't take my word for it -- look at the proof I lay out below:

Let me recap:

------------

From: (Everyman)
Newsgroups:
alt.disasters.aviation,uk.politics.crime,uk.politi cs.parliament,alt.fan.noam
-chomsky,alt.politics.greens,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Pentagon frameup investigation is conclusive -- 9-11 was
a frameup Here is all the proof a grand jury will need.
References:









NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.174.233.81
Message-ID:

Samson had use for pillars. Here is mine.

We have won the debate. The mass-murder frameup is proven. The
evidence -- even the evidence presented by the other side, supports
the small-plane thesis and discredits the official (frameup, coverup)
version of the attack on the Pentagon.

Here is a particularly instructive summary message from a newsgroup
thread:


Gentlemen:

In this thread we have Ralph saying of picture #1 of the 5 sequential
pictures released by the DoD:

" Due coloration/contrast of background the
fuselage blends into the background while for
the same reason the vertical stablizer is visible
as a "Blur"."

But the shape of the tail fin is clearly visible.

Also the missile plume is unmistakable trailing to the right at just
the right level below the tail fin to correspond with missile fired by
an F-16. You know that planes cannot penetrate walls like the
Pentagon, not Boeings and not F-16s -- a missile was needed to
soften the wall so that the small plane would enter without leaving
telltale debris on the grass.

In this thread we have also seen Fox news quoted on the subject of
what is in the first picture of the sequence:

The first photo shows a small, blurry white object
near the upper right corner - possibly the plane just
a few feet above the ground.

Clearly they mistook the smoke trail of the air-to-ground missile for
the plane, and missed spotting the tail fin completely.


And we have MSNBC reporting:

NBC?s Jim Miklaszewski explains that the sequence of five photos,
taken from a Department of Defense security camera, shows the Boeing
757 hitting the ground
an instant before it plows into the building and explodes in a
deadly fireball.

Clearly the smoke of the missile was misinterpreted by many as the
plane hitting the ground and raising smoke. But we know that the
planes trajectory was level and we know that the grass at this
location was unharmed.

In this thread we have someone remark:

Now explain to me the eyewitnesses who saw the plane and jumped from
ttheir cars as it took down lightpoles.

But the fact is that none of the witnesses saw the Boeing take down
the poles -- in every case a deduction is made after the fact, based
on their assumption that the Boeing did it -- but I have talked to
witnesses who prove that the Boeing was nowhere near the poles, that
the Boeing came over the Annex, they it flew by Lagasse from west to
east to the north of him, when the poles were slightly south of him
from his postion at the Gulf gas station.

BUT WHAT BRINGS ME HERE IS TO TELL YOU ALL ONCE AND FOR ALL

The American Society of Civil Engineers Pentagon Building Performance
Report backs up small-plane finding --- DISPROVES A BOEING CRASH

Again and again on this thread I see statements like this:

Well, the whole thing is painstakingly documented in the ASCE report.
Of course, the retards don't want to read it, since it instantly
debunks every single one of their rants.

Except that the ASCE does nothing of the kind. In fact, as I show you
below, the ASCE report supports the small-plane thesis and discredits
the official ( frameup/coverup) story.

Let's look at it together:

The American Society of Civil Engineers in their Pentagon Building
Performance Report which reports the different levels of damage done
to the pillars in the first story of the crash region presents
information that supports the photo evidence showing that NO STARBOARD
WING ENGINE OF A BOEING 575 ENTERED THE PENTAGON.

As you read the report and examin the diagrams and simulations keep
this color code of levels of damage to columns in mind (note:
"Spalling" means that chips have been knocked off the pillar.)

Pink squares: In collapsed area. Presumed to have significant
inpairment

Red squares: Missing, broken, disconnected, or otherwise without
remaining function

Blue squares: Impacted with large deformation and significant
impairment of function

Green squares: Heavy cracking and spalling with some impairment of
function

Yellow squares: Cracking and spalling with no significant impairment
of function.

https://www.asce.org/pdf/illustrations.pdf

(Be sure to use the zoom feature of your Adobe Acrobat etc. to read
the legends of these diagrams)

Let us examin this graphical summary of the engineers' findings.

Illustration A -- A cut-away simulation showing the arrangement of
pillars , numbered 1 through 34 across the outer wall and rows AA
(outer wall), A, B, C ... through O (15 rows) on the first floor as
you go back 220 ft. to the wall of the C-ring exit hole which is
between pillars 5-0 and 7-0 (there being only odd number pillars
behind the first row on the outer wall, i.e., twice as many)

The nose of the killer jet hit pillar 14-AA on the outer wall. The
distance from pillar 14-AA in the outer wall (E-ring) to exit hole
between columns 5-O and 7-0 in the C-ring wall is 310 feet.

But what do the engineers tell us about the damage to the Pentagon?

All the investigators did was enter the crash site for one day of
observations AFTER THE BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED OVER THE ORIGINAL CRASH
HOLE, examining each of the pillars and checking off its condition
according to this checklist:

Pink squares: In collapsed area. Presumed to have significant
inpairment

Red squares: Missing, broken, disconnected, or otherwise without
remaining function

Green squares: Heavy cracking and spalling with some impairment of
function

Yellow squares: Cracking and spalling with no significant impairment
of function.

The fact is that whereas the small-plane explaination is supported by
photos of the outer wall crash hole, pre-collapse, as having interior
wall still standing to the right of the hole where the fuselage
entered, the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance report DOES IN FACT
SUPPORT THE SMALL-PLANE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE BY INDICATING THAT THE
PILLARS TO THE RIGHT OF THE NOSE-ENTRY WERE STILL STANDING. They are
shown leaning out, indicating that they were not knocked down --
(they are drawn in the diagram as leaning, indicating that they were
"disconnected or broken" but not missing or knocked down (missing
pillars are marked by a red spot, knocked down pillars are shown
lying on their sides in the diagram).


And as for the damage alone the 310 feet from AA 14 to the missing
columns (red spots) are extremely close to the center line of the
path. MOST NOTABLE IS THE FACT THAT DOUBLE COLUMN 11-D WHICH IS AN
INTERIOR COLUMN HOLDING UP THE INTERIOR BACK WALL OF E-RING JUST TO
THE RIGHT OF WHERE THE FUSELAGE PASSED (ACCORDING TO THE ENGINEER'S
DOTTED LINE FROM AA-14 TO THE HOLE IN C-RING) That column is not
knocked down or missing, but only is deformed with significant
impairment of function. And on the starboard side of the fuselage no
more pillars are knocked down, whereas in the path of the fuselage and
to the port side from center there are seven more red-marked pillars
that are damaged (missing, broken, disconnected). (See Illustration
B)


But this is totally consistent with the fact that the engine popped
out between pillars 5-O and 7-O -- it is totally consistent with the
fact that the killer jet was a single-engine, engine-in-fuselage
aircraft.

So we see that on the starboard side -- where we have -p[hotos of the
interior walls still standing before the collapse -- indicating that
there was no starboard wing engine -- we now also can point to the
structural report of the American Society of Civil Engineers, who show
that the exterior pillars were not downed to the right of the hole
made by the fuselage -- and that the engineers could make no
determination of which of the second and third rows of pillars (rows
A and B after the exterior row AA) were damaged or not, because of the
subsequent collapse that destroyed this evidence. BUT THE EVIDENCE
THE ENGINEERS WERE ABLE TO PRESENT IS ENTIRELY SUPPORTIVE OF THE SMALL
PLANE THESIS, AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE OFFICIAL STORY THAT AN
AIRLINER WITH A MASSIVE STARBOARD WING ENGINE ENDERED THE BUILDING --
IT WAS DEFINITELY A SINGLE ENGINE PLANE AS ALL THE OTHER HARD
EVIDENCE IS ALSO INDICATING.


And here is other relevant information:


What BB does not want you to learn is that 9-11 was a mass-murder
frameup and that the evidence showing that an F-16 that fired a
missile into the target ahead of its own crash and that the Boeing 757
at the same moment overflew the Pentagon banked right over the 14th
street bridge on the Potomac and landed at Reagan National only one
mile from the crash. The flash and subsequent smoke and fire aided
the Boeing in moving away without detection. And before the noise of
the crash could reach the Washington monumnet, the Boeing was closer
to Reagan National than to the attack scene. At this time all planes
were being called down. The Boeing merely hit the tarmac and taxied
to a hanger where, doubtless, in the following weeks while the airport
was shut down, the plane met the same fate as BMWs that are stolen by
international car theives.

The Fi16 approached at such terrific speed (some heard a sonic boom
before the crash) and so low (ground hugging aircraft are very
difficult to see against a busy background of buildings -- the killer
jet may have been dark so it would resemble the shadow of an aircraft
from the sky. At any rate, all eyes were on the Boeing as it flew
over the Naval Annex, so that people missed the smaller jet in its
stealth approach from the southwest.

All of the above, with all of the details that I have left out, may be
found at the following sites:

Dick Eastman 30 evidence articles (photos, diagrams, ATC reports,
witness accounts etc.)


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-d...rameup/message
s

ANd here is another statement of the same thesis:

Eastman-APFN:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm


Other investigators fill in other aspects of this mass-murder by
Administration neo-con zionists in the Defense Department


http://www.freedomfiles.org/war (Neils Groenveld et al.)
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm
http://www.911dossier.co.uk/ (Ian Henshaw et al.)

http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/
http://www.the-movement.com/Hijackers/Agents.htm (Frank Levin)
http://www.communitycurrency.org/pi.html

http://www.waronfreedom.mediamonitors.net/index.html
http://www.911timeline.net/
http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/PentagonCrash.html

http://www.tomflocco.com/bush_may_invoke_9.htm
http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html
http://www.etherzone.com

http://www.antiwar.com
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html#preface
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/

http://digipressetmp4.teaser.fr/site....php?dosnum=60

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero....htmhttp://www.
http://asile.org/citoyens/numero13/i...gone/index.htm

http://alberta.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/4578.php
http://hamilton.indymedia.org/front....&group=webcast
http://buffalo.indymedia.org/display...rticle_id=3265

========================

Also something new:

From a French investigator I got these questions:

Are you sure that Sgt Lagasse is able to make the difference beetween
"port" and "starboard". As I teach sailing, I can tell you lot of people
get confused with that... And Lagasse doesn't work in the navy

Other question : Lagasse says he was fueling his car near "barraks K".
Would it be somewhere else than Citgo gas station N 9.5 E 17.5 ? For
example N 4.1 E 9.4


He did. He called me on the phone after the interview.

He said he saw the plane from the starboard side as it passed by him.
I checked his knowlege of starboard and port and he convinced me that
he knew the difference and that he has flown aircraft.


After he saw the actual Boeing pass by him, he dived in his car and
grabbed the police radio --

But then, after looking up again, he saw the the crash of the killer
jet (he says it was still the Boeing he was seeing -- but now from
behind the plane and at an angle so that he could just see narrowly
the "port side" -- and I checked it on the map and this is exactly
what he should have seen of the killer plane as it hit goiving his
location at the gas station.

I conclude that he saw the Boeing pass him -- saw its starboard
(right) side, but then, when he looked away and looked back, he saw
the killer jet hitting exactly as we know it did hit and exactly as it
should have looked from his position at the gas station.

He also said that the plane passed him going from left to right,
indicating that he was looking at the starboard -- had he viewed the
known path of the killer jet from the gas station he would have seen
it pass from right to left and seen the port side.


He explains this by saying that the plane yawed, that it flew not
pointing straight ahead, which he ascribes to the tail rudder being
turned extremely to one side. I believe that this is his mind
attemping to reconcile the impossible transition of observed
orientation of aircraft -- seeing first the Boeing from one position,
and then the killer for a split second, at a completely different
angle.

When Lagasse phoned I took my American Automobile Association road map
out and, checking street names against his story located, with him,
the gas station as inside the curve to the north made by the columbia
pike after it passes the Annex, that he was at the gas station inside
that curve in the road, exactly where the gulf station is. The gas
stations are one and the same --

"Richard Smith" wrote in news:MZCdnT5LFpO1-
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .
"Rolly The Pervert" wrote in
:


"Uncle John" wrote in message
.. .
"Scott Vernon" wrote in news:bfu5qk$i817c$1@ID-
154502.news.uni-berlin.de:

no can do, I have it Kill filed.

good thinking



So Bertie, who are our new friends?

A rather dim lot, truth be told, slow on the uptake and with extremely
questionable sexual appetites, but amusing with it.

Bit like one of those Cheesy Brit sex-comedy movies from the '60s.

Or the Democrats during the Clinton era.

m mm, yeah..


Bertei

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in
:

Carry up up the Potomac? Or Monty Python's Sailing Circus?

Or one you might have gone to see.

Bertie

CM


"Bertie the Bunlicker" wrote in message
| So Bunlicker, who are our new friends?
|
| A rather dim lot, truth be told, slow on the uptake and with extremely
| questionable sexual appetites, but amusing with it.
|
| Bit like one of those Cheesy Brit sex-comedy movies from the '60s.
|
|
| Bertie

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 04:39:30 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
posted in message from
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk:
"Capt. Mooron" wrote in
:

Carry up up the Potomac? Or Monty Python's Sailing Circus?

Or one you might have gone to see.

Hullo. Hows the Loon Department?

--
anonyme mhm 32x19 and 31x11
Smeeter #34 Wee Saul Disciple #29
Imp of Confusion and/or Absurdity

http://members.iinet.net.au/~vannevar/ascii3.html