9-11 evidence: lawyer Jon Moseley has his head handed to him by Dick Eastman
- From: "Dick Eastman" <olfriend@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:11:14 -0400
here is this message in rich text format:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/18426
here is a pretty good systematic presentation of Pentagon evidence proving
a false-flag black-op as discussed below by Moseley and Eastman
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/18428
As letters of congratulations come pouring into me, Moseley will not be
answering my points of evidence-- says I didn't debate fair with
oginsky -- see his letter at bottom. You would think he would find it
important to offer some comment on the witnesses who saw two planes
approaching the Pentagon, on on the proof that physical evidence was
planted, the absence of a hole at the wall for a starboard engine, on the
witness mentioned on CNN who saw the Boeing miss the building, on the hole
to the right of column 19 that cannot be explaned by the crash etc. etc.?
He did not. This morning he is posting his views about the speed at which
the WTC should collapse and the temperature needed to weaken steel -- like
the train never hit him.
=================
After this I think we can safely eliminate the notion that lawyer Jon
Moseley is a competent or reliable voice in 9-11 questions.
Jon Moseley writes:
(with reply)
From: Dick Eastman
Exactly what hit the second floor to the right of column 19?
[MOSELEY RESPONDING] I have not counted the columns, but I believe you are
talking about the aircraft engine, correct?
Eastman reply: The nose of the killer jet hit at column 14. Given the
spacing of the columns and the configuration of the plane the starbard
engine should have hit at first-floor level at column #16. It did not as
shown by photos showing column 16 still standing. Column 19 on the second
floor is way too far south of crash point to have been caused by an engine
or any part of the plane.
These pictures will bring readers up to speed:
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/pentagon/images/6.jpg
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/pentagon/images/MissileDamage_First-Floor_Wall.jpg
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/pentagon/images/pent-graphic-757.jpg
http://bedoper.com/eastman/no_engine_hit_between__16an.jpg
The engine of a 757 whose nose was hitting at column 14 could not have hit
to the right of (south of) column 19 on the second floor -- it is too far
away and the hole is not large enough -- but something almost as big as an
engine penetrated there - something the size, say, of an air-to-ground
missile.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How could the attacking plane that knocked down the first lamppost and
entered the entry hole and exited the exit hole in "c"ring -- how could
that plane have been the Boeing 757 that Sgt. Lagasse saw pass north of him
(so he could see the starboard side windows) when that would put the plane
on an approach to the pentagon where it would be impossilbe for it to have
hit the lamppost and lined up with those holes. (And every one of the many
witness who says the Boeing came "directly" over the Naval Annex establishes
the same point!!!)
[MOSELEY RESPONDING] You obviously have never visited Arlington County --
where I lived for 15 years.
It is a perfectly straight line from the Naval Annex (although I think the
dormitories along Columbia Pike are not known as "Naval Annex" precisely) to
the impact point at the Pentagon.
Your willful ignorance of the Pentagon layout is the problem. The path is
absolutely perfect.
Eastman reply:
First, from one point to another point is ALWAYS a straight line -- duh!
Certainly the Boeing flew straight to the Pentagon as it came over the Naval
Annex, but that is not the problem you have here, Jon. Look at this
picture taken from over the Annex:
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/pentagon/images/coming_over_Annex_misses_poles.jpg
Note where the crash happened. So here is the problem for you, Jon -- the
first lamppost that was downed was standing just to the right of that
overpass bridge with the green sign on it. The Boeing could not have come
over the Annex and then hit that pole and then also hit Pentagon at the
crash location shown.
Second, photomaps don't lie.
According to ASCE engineers the plane hit the west wall at a 52 degree
angle -- to line up the entry hole with the exit hole -- which also lines up
with the first lamppost that was downed -- but see how the line thus
described misses the gas station and the Naval Annex.
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/pentagon/images/vue-aerienne-l.jpg
But Sgt. William Lagasse of the Pentagon police at the gas station saw the
plane fly just north of him as it was headed east to the Pentagon (he was on
the plane's starboard side as it passed him)
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/pentagon/images/eastman.jpg
That makes it impossible for the jetliner that Lagasse saw to have been the
killer jet that knocked down that lamppost and entered the Pentagon at a 52
degree angle.
Christopher Munsey headed South on the Interstate saw "a silver, twin-
engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy
Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon, just hundreds of yards
away." Munsey saw the red and blue markings "as it appeared to hit the side
of the Pentagon."
Anon: ... the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window,
coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon
directly towards the heliport. The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or
Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex, as if it had been following
Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to Pentagon. The aircraft was
moving fast, at what I could only be estimate as between 250 to 300 knots.
All in all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view for
approximately 3 seconds. The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of
attack, on a direct course for the Pentagon. It was "clean", in as much as,
there were no flaps applied and no apparent landing gear deployed. He was
slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just
"jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level
his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How do you explain the people who saw two planes approaching the Pentagon at
the same time -- at slightly different angles?
[MOSELEY RESPONDING] They are in your imagination. There are no such
people.
Howver, your ignorance also hides the fact that NATIONAL AIRPORT IS ABOUT 1
MILE AWAY. and there is a constant stream of aircraft taking off and
landing at National Airport.
Eastman reply:
" Keith Wheelhouse and his sister, Pam Young were preparing to leave a
funeral at Arlington National Cemetery when they watched "the jet" approach
and hit the Pentagon. Both saw another plane flying near the jet that
crashed. When asked if the other plane could have been an airliner
performing a normal landing at Reagan National Airport, Wheelhouse stated
that he was not confused by normal airport traffic."
" Kelly Knowles from an Arlington apartment two miles away saw two planes
moving toward the Pentagon, one veering away as the other crashed."
Knowles says there were approaching at slightly different angles -- but as
has been remarked by many people on both sides of the question have
oted --planes do not approach Reagan from the west -- the runways run
north to south. No plane coming into Reagan would have been approaching the
airport at a slightly different angle than the plane that hit the Pentagon.
{MOSELEY RESPONDING} Call someone up in Arlington (Crystal City to be
precise) and tell them that "Aircraft were spotted near the Pentagon"
THEY WILL LAUGH HYSTERICALLY OVER THE PHONE AT YOUR NAIVETE. When AREN'T
there aircraft flying almost exactly over the Pentagon?
In fact, about 3/4's mile from the Pentagon is a park where people love to
pull off of George Washington Parkway and sit and WATCH THE AIRCRAFT landing
about every 1 minute (time is subjective, but it is a very rapid
succession).
Eastman reply: I am not simply stating that "Aircraft were spotted near the
Pentagon" and neither are witnesses Knowles and Wheelhouse. We are talking
about planes approaching the Pentagon from the west and from approximately
the same direction -- a direction not used by aircraft when landing at
Reagan.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How do you explain the absence of an imprint hole for a starboard engine at
column #16 given that the nose of the killer jet hit at column #14?
[MOSELEY RESPONDING] The engine hit a generator sitting on the ground
outside the Pentagon.
Eastman reply: Had the killer jet that crashed at column #14 been a Boeing
757 its engine would have missed the generator. The generator received a
gauge at the top of it -- possibly from whatever hardened warhead penetrated
to the right of column #19. But certainly no 757 jet engine hit the top of
the generator. There was nothing to deflect the starboard wing engine from
column 16 had there been such an engine in the first place.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
What about all those witnesses who claim that the plane they saw was smaller
than a jetliner?
[MOSELEY RESPONDING] They are all in your imagination. There are no such
people.
Eastman reply:
There is a very famous witness, much discussed over the years, who claimed
that the plane he saw could not have been more than a 12-passenger plane. I
am trying to locate this quote -- but it is very well known to
investigators -- by readers informed on this subject.
Read my account of the witnesses reports. (You should also read
olmgren's -- he was a pretty good researcher, early on.)
http://www.bedoper.com/eastman/witnesses/index.html
Here is a CNN reporter questioning another witness:
CNN: You got a close-up look at the damage, didn't you?
Wit: Yes, I was right next to the building.
CNN: And what did you see?
Wit: I saw a big, gaping hole and I could see pieces of the plane inside.
CNN: Earlier, an eye-witness told us the plane didn't crash into the
building.
Wit: Well, I don't know what it looked like from where he was, but I looked
right inside the hole and I know it crashed into the building.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
How do you account for the fact that there is no damage to the facade of the
building above the third floor --even at pillar #14 -- when a Boeing 757
resting on the grass in front of the Pentagon would reach half way up the
fourth floor?
[MOSELEY RESPONDING] There was extensive damage across a 90 foot wide
hole, as those on site have determined and evaluated.
Furthermore, the only part of the aircraft that is that high is the tail,
which would snap off, bend backward, and slip inside the open hole at 540
MPH.
So it is false and misleading to talk about the height of the aircraft
without admitting that more than HALF of that height is a very small part of
the aircraft that can easily snap off.
Eastman reply: There is damage along 90 feet of the wall on the first floor
level only -- it is not however a 90 foot long hole -- as we have seen
pillars and wall are still standing in places, as for example pillars # 16,
17, 18, 19 etc. Some combination of crash and explosion brought down parts
of the wall along the 90 foot stretch but not the entire length in one big
hole. As we saw above there was no place for the engine to have gone.
But we are here talking about the vertical damage, not the horizontal. The
tail fin left no impact -- not even breaking one of those thick windows
above the second floor.
So let's look at your thesis that the tail fin was shaved off or snapped
off. If this were the case than -- as the French first pointed out -- there
should have been a tail fin sitting in front of the wall for all to see and
photograph. There was none. In fact there should have been a lot of the
plane that did not enter the building. But all we have is small pieces of
some aircraft and confetti like shards (the casing of a missile blown to
smithereens?)
The tail fin did not hit the higher floors of the Pentagon (left no trace
of damage) and it did not snap off -- so where is it? Or did a
single-engine military jet hit the Pentagon at first-floor level and its
tail fin took out column 14 on the second floor -- while another missile
entered the second floor to the right of column 19. That is what fits the
facts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why was the only piece of a Boeing 757 photographed that day -- by Mark
Faram 10 minutes after the crash -- found on the lawn north of the
rash --
[MOSELEY RESPONDING] Because at 540 MPH, all of the aircraft would
continue INSIDE of the Pentagon.
You obviously flunked basic science. Do you imagine that the aircraft parts
would BOUNCE off the Pentagon wall and remain outside?????????
Eastman reply: you really are a dishonest rat -- I notice you cut out
what I was really arguing here -- and gave an answer that has nothing to do
with what I was talking about.
Here is question Jon chose to strike out from my letter:
"Why was the only piece of a Boeing 757 photographed that day -- by Mark
Faram 10 minutes after the crash -- found on the lawn north of the
rash -- when it has been definitely proven (by the fragment of the letter
"n" and the two lines of rivets following it) that the piece came from the
starbord side of a 757 and that the starboard side of the killer jet or
missile faced south, not north as it crashed into the west wall of the
Pentagon that day."
The famous piece of debris photographed on the lawn north of the crash about
ten minutes after the crash came from the starboard side of a Boeing 757 all
right, but the starboard side of the killer jet that hit the Pentagon faced
south, not north. The piece was planted on the wrong side of the crash.
Let me run that by you again, Jon. It is a brilliant proof that the
government planted false evidence, if I do say so myself:
The famous piece of debris photographed on the lawn north of the crash
about ten minutes after the crash came from the starboard side of a Boeing
757 all right, but the starboard side of the killer jet that hit the
Pentagon faced south, not north. The piece was planted on the wrong side of
the crash. This was the only definite piece of a Boeing 757 that was
photographed at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 -- other pieces were
photographed on subsequent days and are all portable. We have established
one piece of evidence as planted -- that makes all the other debris
evidence photographed by FEMA two days later suspect and worthless as
evidence.
Here is where it is all demonstrated for you:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm
port side (note door) -- no bare stretch of aluminum following the "n" --
the piece could not have come from this side, yet the piece was found on the
lawn north of (portside of) the plane just before it crashed.
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=194197&size=M&width=&height=&sok=&photo_nr=&prev_id=&next_id=
starboard side -- bare stretch of aluminum follows the "n" -- this is the
side of a Boeing 757 where the piece came from -- but the starboard side of
the killer jet faced away from the north lawn where this piece was planted
http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=188155&size=L&width=&height=&sok=&photo_nr=&prev_id=&next_id=
Here are two other pictures of port and starboard sides of the 757 in case
the above URLs are not working.
Photo one. http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/pentagon/images/320780.jpg
Photo two. http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/pentagon/images/debris-77.jpg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
when it has been definitely proven (by letter the fragment of the letter "n"
and the two lines of rivets following it) that the piece came from the
starbord side of a 757 and that the starboard side of the killer jet or
missile faced south, not north?
[MOSELEY RESPONDING] This is completely false.
Eastman reply: Hell, I just demonstrated it is true -- showed you how the
piece had to have come from the starboard side -- remember the stretch of
bare aluminum following the letter n fragment and how the rivets line up --
and how the port side of the plane does not have those rivets following the
letter "n" because there is a door right next to the "n" -- again look at
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm
Seems like you are pretty uninformed -- and pretty dishonest with your own
audience, Jon.
By the way, Jon, I am about as honest a man as you are likely to find in
these United States -- and don't forget it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
Why do those who say they saw the crash -- like Timmerman -- include little
impossibilities -- like the wings coming forward and folding up and going
through the hole the fuselage went through etc.
[MOSELEY RESPONDING] Thatis not only possible it is INEVITABLE for an
object traveling at 540 MPH.
You are simply clueless about basic science.
At 540 MPH, objects disintegrate and the fragments behave not unlike a
liquid.
Go back to high school and take science again.
Eastman reply: My year of college physics will be enough, thank you.
The plane hit at a 52 degree angle. Had this plane been a Boeing 757 its
starboard wing engine -- which protrudes ahead of the wing -- would have hit
the wall ahead of the starboard wing root. The engine would have been
buried in the wall before the fuselage could give the wing its first tug.
If the wing came forward -- gaining on the long crashing fuselage of a
757 -- that would mean that it had severed from the wing root and thus could
not be pulled into the hole made by the fuselage as one "witness" claimed.
Timmerman is trying to account for the fact that there is no wing debris
along the length of the wall -- and why there is no hole for a starboard
engine. His explanation is ludicrous. And your effort at defending him --
"at 540 MPH objects disintegrate and fragments behave not unlike liquid' --
whether it is true or not -- certainly does not lend support to what he is
claiming.
So, Jon, you have accused me of saying things that are untrue and of
witnesses existing only in my imagination etc. -- but in each case we see
that it really you who is trying to blow smoke up eveyone's ass. You are
completely unfamiliar with the evidence and the witness accounts -- you are
bluffing your way through all of your "debunking" efforts. I think everyone
sees that now, Mr. Shyster.
Jon Moseley
One more thing, Jon. You did not address all of my points. You seem to
have lost this one:
No one saw any luggage, no one saw any passenger seats -- many many
accounts from inside the pentagon about what they saw -- and they all saw
items from the same very small set of items -- and each of these items
quite portable.
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Every man is repsonsible to every other man.
http://www.bedoper.com
Jon Moseley
(703) 850-3733
Fax: (703) 783-0449
ENJOY COLD PEACE -- A Modern Spy Novel by Jon Moseley
http://www.ColdPeace.com
Available on AMAZON.Com --
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0970444729//ref=nosim/102-4962634-7308958
----------------------------------------
Jon Mosley has responded to my letter answering his claims point by point.
Do you think he addressed the witnesses who saw two planes, or the proof
that evidence was planted, or absence of a hole for a starboard engine, or
the witness mentioned on CNN who saw the Boeing miss the building, etc.
etc.? He did not. He addresses nothing. I had made claims -- he said
they were not true -- and I answered each claim with the acutal witnesses
and the photo evidence -- but this is Jon Mosely's sorry reply (I really
expected that he would put up a fight):
From: Jon Moseley
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 9:36 AM
Subject: [911Issues] Re: The GREAT Moseley-Eastman Debate right here -- a
good tool for 9-11 activists proving the conspiracy
Dick Eastman LOST the debate with Jacob Roginsky because of his refusal to
actually participate and address any of the questions or points in the
debate.
While Jacob was debating, Dick Eastman was ABSENT from the debate, AWOL, off
somewhere else on tangents.
Therefore, there is no need for anyone to debate Dick Eastman. He has
already lost the debate.
Dick Eastman's complaint, if I understand, it would be best resolved by
ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS posed to you (Eastman) and vice versa and having the
debate proceed on a point-by-point basis.
So, the very problem that Eastman identifies his his own creation, because
he repeatedly refused to stay focused on the debate or address points or
questions, but simply wandered off onto other topics... mostly bashing
Israel and engaging in anti-semetic slurs.
Jon Moseley has run away with a lawyer's smoke screen.
For the record, here is the Roginsky-Eastman debate so you can see how
honest Moseley is being when he claims "Dick Eastman LOST the debate with
Jacob Roginsky because of his refusal to actually participate and address
any of the questions or points in the debate."
Roginsky-Eastman Debate
#1 Roginsky-Eastman debate (preliminary questions)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/17939
#2 Roginsky-Eastman debate ("white explosion" not a proof I am
defending -- merely incriminating)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/18073
#3 Ronginsky- Eastman debate (debate format discussed)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/18075
#4 Roginsky-Eastman debate (was the initial white explosion jet fuel?)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/17972
#5 Roginsky-Eastman debate, (questions about the security cam video)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/17977
#6 Roginsky-Eastman debate, #6 (the killer jet carried jet fuel too)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/17985
#7 Roginsky -Eastman debate, #7 (the plane behind the pass reader box)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/18074
#8 Roginsky- Eastman debate, #8 (tail fin or blot?, smoke trail or nose?)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/18076
#9 Roginsky- Eastman debate, #9 (Dick's images are fake, etc.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/18151
#10 Roginsky-Eastman debate #10 (showdown at high noon)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/frameup/message/18186
.
- Prev by Date: soc.politics Posting Guidelines
- Next by Date: Terrorists will attack from Iraq.
- Previous by thread: Rummy's letter to a liberal democrat
- Next by thread: Terrorists will attack from Iraq.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
