Part Three: What
convinced me that Flight 77 was not the Killer Jet
All New "Evidence"
Presented by the Defenders of the Official
Cover-up is now highly questionable,
since it was proven that
this famous proffered "proof
" was planted false evidence,
and a demonstrated impossibility
1) Planted Evidence: The world-famous
piece of a
Boeing 757
photographed on the Pentagon lawn south
of the crash
did not come from Boeing 757
# N644AA,
American Airlines Flight 77.
Here is the famous piece of
wreckage, the "star evidence"
backing the official story of
what happened in Arlington on
September 11, 2001.
This piece is from the letter "n" on the
starboard side of a Boeing 757.
The letter fits. The rivets match.
It is from a Boeing 757, starboard side.
And because photographers found it on the
Pentagon lawn
ten minutes after the explosion (and after
men were already
on the lawn moving pieces from one place to
another) it
has been considered the prime piece of
evidence that the
plane that hit that building was really
American Airlines
Flight 77, Boeing 757 # N644AA.
Could this fragment
alternatively have come from the letter "n"
painted on the port
side of Flight 77 plane N644AA?
Definitely not. It
couldn't because it is only on the starboard side
that the "n" is followed
by several inches of additional blank space,
matching alleged the debris piece.
The piece is not merely "n", rather it is
"n___" ( note the extra empty
space to the right of the letter) on the
fragment. There is no room for
that extra space to the right of the "n" on
the port side. Why not?
Because an escape exit follows the letter and
it is less than three
inches from it.
This difference in the space gap following
letter "n" on the port and
the starboard side is viewed clearly in the
larger version of the following
photo. TO SEE IT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
GAPS
FOLLOWING THE LETTER "n" ON THE TWO SIDES
YOU MUST
VIEW THE ENLARGEMENT OF THIS PICTURE :
 |
Thus the "n___" fragment had to come from the starboard side
of a 757
( right side of plane, left side of this picture.) But the
famous fragment
was discovered by photographers lying on the south lawn, far to
the port
side (left side of plane, right side of this picture) of the
attack plane as it
crossed the lawn in its approach to its target. Since the piece
can neither
have bored through the crashing fuselage to get so far to the
port side nor
could it have flown against an explosion radiating out in all
directions, even
assuming it did pop off under stresses from the compression of
the plane
during the first split second of the crash, we must conclude
that the piece
did not come from the crash at all. The piece thus had to have
been
carried to the spot and planted by an accomplice some
time before the
moment, a full ten minutes after the crash, when the first
photographer,
Mark Feran, says he arrived on the scene.
And so we can only conclude that piece is too long to the
right of the letter
"n" to have come from the port side where the door immediately
follows that
letter, it does not fit on the port side, which is the side of
the crashing killer
jet which faced the south line where this famous (planted)
piece of debris
found and photographed hundreds of feet south of the crash
site.
A further note: The wind, as the photos of smoke show, was
blowing from
the southwest -- against alleged flight path of this light
piece of sheet
aluminum. Also to get that distance it would have had to ride
against
the gale of air rushing in from all sides of the explosion to
replace the
rapid rise of suddenly super-heated air warmed by the
white-hot initial
explosion.
View port sides of 575 sister ships N668AA and
N680AA at
And sister ship N648AA starboard side:
=============
Recap:
We see that the killer jet did not
hit the ground before striking the
building -- the white missile
plume smoke in the first frame,
the level trail of smoke still
visible in the second frame all are
at an even level above the
ground. (Notice too the insert of
an
air-to-ground missile being fired by the F-16 in the tiny
picture
I have added
below. It is the same plume of smoke.
Look at
the smoke plume here in frame one of the DoD security camera
video.
Clearly jet
and missile are it is
above the ground and have been for some
distance
previous -- between 5 and 10 feet.
Presumably, the witnesses who saw this
smoke
interpreted it as smoke
from a crash
on the lawn -- but that of course requires another story to
explain away
bad fit of the first error of perception, so, since the plane
next
crash-entered the building then there must have been a bounce
too,
after hitting on the grass!! (No mention of giant cabal
spools in the way
though, please notice.)
But no one
who watched the Boeing reported a bounce. In all that long list
of
witnesses, not one remarked on a bounce -- not even Timmerman,
if you
re-read him.
Timmerman: ...being next to
National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine
was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came
right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as it went by the
Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it
pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a
building. And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in
front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building ...
But those who were nearest the
Boeing said it was silent (e.g. Riskus)!!! The Boeing was
coasting in silently -- to be sufficiently slow when it reached
the airport. BUT THE F-16 "KILLER JET" WAS THE INTELLIGENT
AIRCRAFT, THE AIRCRAFT THAT ADJUSTED ITS SPEED TO MAKE THE
OPERATION COME OFF, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MISSILE EXPLOSION AND
CRASH OCCURRED JUST AS FLIGHT 77 FLEW OVER THE TARGET POINT AT
THE WEST WALL. MANY REPORT FROM THE SOUND THAT A JET WAS
ADDING POWER IN ITS APPROACH -- THAT, THEN, WAS THE KILLER JET
SPEEDING UP TO MEET ITS SCHEDULED RENDEZVOUS 90 FEET BELOW
FLIGHT 77 AS THE AIRLINER FLEW OVER THE WALL.
Finally, on the matter of whether
or not there was a "gouge". There definitely was not, as you
can see. Any gouges that may have been photographed later were
probably made by the wheels of fire trucks in the wet lawn.
(And of course the French are suggesting that the sand was put
down to cover the "gougeless" lawn.)
There was no gouge and bounce.
The giant spools in the way, the video shot of the low and
perfectly level approach make that abundantly clear. The story
is disproven.
CONCLUSION:
All evidence and
witness testimony presented in this paper are consistent with the
thesis that a small killer plane, the F-16 is the most likely
candidate, actually crashed into the Pentagon, while Flight 77,
which also descended toward the target spot, in fact flew over the
building, concealed immediately from most witnesses by fire and
smoke rising to the rear and by the "blend-in" environment of
Reagan National whose runway 16 it could reach in just 6 seconds
from the onset of the crash explosion.
Dick Eastman
223 S. 64th Ave.
Yakima, Washington
98908
(509) 965-4893
