Small Jet Attack on Pentagon Verified By Witnesses, Video Camera, Building Damage, Type and Quantity of Wreckage
By Dick Eastman
The Pentagon's Security Camera Video Sequence is "SMOKING-GUN" EVIDENCE, establishing the September 11 Mass-Murder as an "INSIDE-JOB," a Frameup Conspiracy Planned to Involve the U.S. in a War for Monopoly Control of Oil and for the Continuation of Afghan "Northern Alliance" Druglords' Opium Shipments to China to Boost World HEROIN PRODUCTION and thereby Increase Drug Revenues that are Laundered into the Big New York and City of London Investment Banks.
Editor's note: And to begin WW III and more.
See the attack video evidence here:
1) the size of tail fin image in frame #1 requires that for the plane to be a Boeing 757, the front end of its fuselage would have to be visible extending out to the left of the stone driveway pillar in the picture.
a) the 757 is over seven times the length of its own tail fin, i.e., it would take
seven and a quarter tail fins to cover the back of a Boeing 757, Stegasaurus style, from the tail fin in the rear to the nose, but the width of the image of the driveway pillar that conceals the attacking plane's entire fuselage is only five times as wide as the tail fin that appears sticking up above and behind the pillar (so that regardless of angle of approach to the Pentagon wall or of distance of the aircraft from the camera, the plane simply cannot be aircraft of the length and form of a Boeing 757;
b) a 757 is 155 feet long and the Pentagon is only 71 feet high, but by direct inspection, if you stood the aircraft behind the pillar on end against the wall, say half way to the far end of the wall from the impact point, it would reach no more than 70 percent of the wall's height, the method is rough, but the margin of error in your estimate can be nowhere near the 218 percent difference that would be needed to turn that attack jet into Flight 77.
2) the presence of the unmistakable white horizonal missile plume being launched by the plane to weaken the wall in the vicinity of impact so that the jet can easily invade the Pentagon interior without give-away aircraft parts bouncing back on the grass and giving away the frameup;
3) in frame #2 the tell-tale white-hot intitial explosion of the missile warhead is definitely neither a jet fuel kerosene fire, nor the result of aluminum, plastic and flesh crashing into brick, concrete and glass;
4) the blossom of white-hot explosion of the missile warhead spreads laterally, more so than the subsequent jet fuel flames that in frame #3 come from inside the Pentagon, suggesting that the warhead was designed to trigger at the split second of impact rather than after entry through the wall.
All existing coverup scenarios seeking to explain away this smoking-gun evidence have just been answered.
PREVIOUS ARTICLE NEXT ARTICLE
The Journal of History - Fall 2002 Copyright © 2002 by News Source, Inc.