9/11

Pentagon
The Final Battle:

Jean-Desmoulins, Gallic Disinfo Super Rat
meets the cat who knows where it's at

by Richard Eastman

Jean-Pierre Desmoulins has offered nothing to contest the evidence. His research is all unfounded assertion backed by bluff and spurious "technologist" posing. The man and his experts have nothing but a desire to deceive.

It is ironic that I, an American, I am the one who is now substantiating the "French" discovery that Flight 77, a Boeing 757, was not the aircraft that killed 167 people at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. And that Jean-Pierre Desmoulins is defending the killers by attempting to attack (and failing to undermine) the overwhelming evidence that the Boeing overflew the crashing killer jet proceeding to land at Reagan National Airport, which is only one mile southeast of the point where the Boeing, headed east, overflew the explosion.

Here is the evidence that no one anywhere is able to shake.

1. The plane's nose, all agree, hit between two windows, at a point the civil engineers label exterior "column 14." But if that is true and if the plane was in fact a Boeing 757 then it would have to be the case that the massive starboard (right side) wing engine of that aircraft would have had to have penetrated between columns #s 16 and 17. However between columns #s 16 and 17 we see interior wall still standing -- exactly where the starboard engine would have had to have penetrated! No starboard engine entered the building. No starboard engine was found outside the building. The lawn in front the the structure is clean. There was no obstruction that would have "bounced" the engine back -- the inner walls are flimsy, they do not support the weight of the building, which stands on many pillars.

Here is an earlier picture that tells the same story:

Thus we see that the engine could not have penetrated at the first-floor level neither between column #s 16 and 17, nor between column #s 17 and 18. There was no starboard engine. The killer jet was a single-engine plane.

Note also that column #15 was blown away on the first floor, except for metal reinforcement rods that are still standing unbroken. No wing penetrated here either.

Desmoulins has studiously avoided confronting this evidence and that which follows.

See also these:

[p3]


2. The Killer Jet was not proportioned like the Boeing 757 in terms of tail size to fuselage length. The following picture released by the Department of Defense in March of 2002 was taken by a security camera north of the attack. The tail fin of the killer jet is seen sticking up above and behind the yellow parking-pass machine in the foreground. This amazing picture, the only photo of the attack less than two seconds before impact, clearly shows that the killer jet was not an American Airlines Boeing 757 and it also shows that a missile was fired.

Click picture to see the "animated" sequence of the five consecutive pictures, enlarged and aligned, that were released by the Defense Department, yet which totally undercuts the official story. (They thought they were clever in releasing only the frame in which the attacking aircraft is covered by the yellow parking-pass machine in the foreground -- but as we see the planners of 9-11 think big and have amazing resources at their disposal, but they are not very bright.

Here is the evidence they gave us which will (or at least should) hang them all:

The tail fin does not belong to a 757 because there is no proportional fuselage to go with it in evidence.

Note the tail fin, the characteristic shape seen on most aircraft, with a dark marking on the fin.

But notice that while the tail fin is visible above and behind the yellow parking-pass tower in the foreground, there is no evidence of any shiny aluminum Boeing fuselage projecting out to the left of the parking-pass tower. But there should be, because the Boeing 757 is long enough to line up almost seven of its own tail fins along its back, "Stegosaurus-style," but as we see the parking-pass tower blocks only a length of five of the tail fins behind it!! Given the size of the image of the tail fin, there should be 2/7ths of the fuselage of a Boeing projecting out to the left from behind the parking-pass pillar -- and it should be most obvious in the unobstructed morning sun But the fuselage is not there. The plane is not a Boeing 757!!!!

But that is not all. Look closely at the picture above; you do not have to look too closely to see it!!! To the right of the same yellow parking-pass pillar in the foreground we see a trail of thick white smoke trailing behind and below the tail fin. This smoke is too thick to be condensation trail from off-wing turbulence. It is not smoke from a damaged engine or burning fuel tanks -- of the witnesses who saw the Boeing -- not one saw it hit the poles, there was no spray of jet fuel reported, no one saw the Boeing smoking -- BUT WHAT THEY DID THINK THEY SAW WAS THE PLANE CRASHING ALL OF A SUDDEN INTO THE GRASS BEFORE HITTING -- OBVIOUSLY SEEING, FROM BEHIND, THE MISSILE BEING FIRED FROM THE SMALL PLANE AND MENTALLY INTERPRETING IT AS A CRASH AND FLAMES ON THE LAWN -- BUT THE LAWN WAS NOT HIT -- ALTHOUGH THE LAWN WAS COVERED WITH SAND TO PREVENT INVESTIGATIVE SAMPLING OF TRACES OF MISSILE ENGINE RESIDUE FALLEN THE VERY NEXT DAY!!!

Without doubt an air-ground-missile was fired in advance of the approaching killer jet, which exploded just outside the wall, blasting away pillar #15, all but the reinforcement rods it contained. The white-hot flash of this explosion, reported by at least one witness and seen clearly in the video is not that of an aluminum and plastic plane with a lot of kerosene (which burns red and orange) hitting stone, wood, walling and reinforced concrete -- rather this is the white-hot explosion of a missile warhead -- a warhead which brought down ("softened") the first-floor outer wall so that the following killer jet could enter at pillar #14 -- but also producing a blinding flash so that people would miss the critical moment when the Boeing, instead of crashing, flys over and behind the explosion and in three seconds is blended in with Reagan National air traffic during a period of chaos when all planes in the country are being called to land immediately here they are.3.

More conclusive evidence. The killer jet brought down four or five lamp posts around a nearby highway overpass on its way in to the target from the southwest. These poles and the first and last holes made in the walls of the Pentagon describe the path of the killer jet. BUT THIS IS PATH THAT WITNESSES GIVE THE BOEING AS IT APPROACHED THE PENTAGON. The witnesses saw the plane come in more from the west -- specifically they saw it come over the Sheraton Hotel, over the Naval Annex, over the southmost piece of Arlington Cemetery directly between the Annex and the Pentagon, and directly over the gas station (all these locations form more or less a straight line, which is definitely a line that is north of the path taken by the killer jet as established by the physical damage along the path (poles and holes) and which is definitely coming upon the wall at a more perpendicular angle than that of the killer jet, which struck at an angle of about 55-degrees into the west wall from the southwest. And all media representations of the attack at the time showed the Boeing coming up to the wall in a near-perfect perpendicular approach -- presumably based on interviews and eye witness accounts of those who were watching the Boeing. Even the graphics art representations of the Army Times showed at first a perpendicular approach.

There is no getting past this fact. The killer jet, small and very fast and very low to the ground where it would not be noticed (almost like the moving shadow on the ground of the Boeing whose path it was converging upon), and it blew down the poles with hurricane force off the wing as it flew in the low thick air at greater than the speed of sound (two witnesses heard a sonic boom before the crash happened!).

So then, the hard evidence of the line of damage shows one path while the witnesses are overwhelmingly in agreement that the Boeing took a different path -- over the Annex, over the gas station etc. Definitely two planes attacked.

4. Thirty seconds after the crash a huge C-130 military transport also flew over the crash site, through the smoke -- and that plane then proceeded to Pennsylvania where it flew over the crash of Flight 93. Another plane, a large four-jet-engine plane, at the time of the attack was making dives over Washington D.C. where it was photographed and videoed and shown on the BBC and reported by witnesses -- many of whom thought they had been watching Flight 77 -- reporting an attack on the Pentagon by a plane diving at an "irrecoverable angle???" This other plane may actually have dived into the north end of a Reagan airport runway -- as firetrucks at Reagan National first received word that there had been a crash at the runway -- and D.C. radio stations were getting reports of a crash at the 14-street bridge which is just north of the airport -- ALL OF THIS INDICATIVE OF GREAT PAINS BEING TAKEN TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS PLENTY OF DISTRACTION TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM NOTICING THE KILLER JET AS IT APPROACHED. And, yes, one more -- a helicopter took off and circled the Pentagon for no good reason -- it was on the other side at the moment of the crash -- it too being a perfect visual distraction for eyes focused too near the Pentagon during the three critical seconds of the killer jets approach and the Boeing's flyover.