humanuderground banner

Independent Flight 77 - Pentagon Event Investigation

Comments from Dick Eastman


Caught: Pentagon  crash witness James S. Robbins has given false disinfo
account of 9/11 Pentagon attack-- totally contradicts Pentagon's own video
of level approach in claiming he saw 757 "diving in at an unrecoverable angle"

Dear Humanunderground,
I usually don't swim upstream to you -- but this a big one..
Dick Eastman
Here is ample convicting evidence for the 9/11 frame-up and cover-up..
The only question is, will people have the nerve ask that it be acted upon.??
Discredited: James S. ("I-saw-it.") Robbins contradicts Pentagon video when
he claims he saw 757 "diving in at an unrecoverable angle is frozen in my
9/11 Pentagon Event: Alleged crash witness James S. Robbins caught in false
account: contradicts Pentagon video when he claims he saw 757 "diving in at
an unrecoverable angle" -- the National-Security Analyst thus implicated in
9/11 mass-murder-frame-up.
National-Security Analyst and National Review contributor James S. Robbins
claims that Thierry Meyssan is a "nitwit" for concluding that a Boeing 757
did not hit the Pentagon and does so, he admits, without reading Meyssan's
Yet it is Robbins himself who contradicts other witnesses and the Pentagon
video video when he claims he saw a Boeing 757 "diving in at an
unrecoverable angle is frozen in my memory."? It is not the claim of seeing
a 757 that catches up Robbins, but his claim that he saw it in a dive. The
video shows a horizontal approach and other witnesses claim it was a
"tree-top level appraoch" and a "level appraoch" 20 feet above ground level.
The F-16 that attacked the Pentagon had the ground-contour-hugging
capability to appraoch horizontally and that is why the cover-up lie
requires a "diving" 757.? Robbin's false testimony is as good as a
confession to this investigator.
Also, the account that must be beaten is not? Meyssan's "no-plane" theory,
but the Bosankoe - Eastman discovery from direct replicable observation of
the D.o.D's own hard data, the security video camera which captured the
event.? (See below.)
Enough is now known about the Sept. 11 frame-up attacks in New York and
Washington D.C. to put the cuffs on Bush, Cheney, Kissinger, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz, Rice, Gingrich, Pearle and to hold the entire Trilateral
Commission on suspicion.
See if you don't agree after you examin the following evidence.
We knew their motives: 1) The Taliban was erradicating the Norther Alliance
druglord opium that the Triad Chinese use to make the heroin that sells for
$2 trillion a year, the proceeds laundered into U.S. and City of London
investment banks to build slave labor in China; 2) Control of Central Asian
Oil Reserves ($6 trillion total) and the pipeline the and corporation
domination the Taliban would not happen; 3) all the war profiteering that
Rep. Cynthia McKinney (now under attack because they found Moslems who
support Palestinians who contributed to her campaign) has pointed out that
Bush and Cheney-tied firms are to enjoy; 4) totalitarian controls that makes
the ruling CFR syndicate invincible against any populist/progressive (now
labeled pro-terrorist and "for-us-or-against-us traitors;" 5) pretext for
grabbing Iraqi and Iranian oil holdings (as they tried to capture #3? oil
producer Venezuela by US-staged coup d'etat last week) -- to create the
final global oil monopoly; 6) to crush Islam, which is the populism of
Central Asia, North Afric and the Middle East -- their only moral-system
counterbalance to despotism in cultures dominated by tribal hatreds (all
Moslems are brothers, tithe 10 percent to the poor, true equality among men
before God, and anti-usury etc. --? whatever you may think about it).
But now we have proof that the Administration had much more than just "prior
knowledge" of 911.
Read this carefully -- it is information in the race between libertaion and
snuff-out.? Speed it on.
Here is the direct visual evidence supplied by the D.o.D. that the
Pentagon was attacked not by a crashbombing Boeing 757, but by
a remotely-controlled? F-16 Falcon that approached horizonally at
20 feet using automatic ground-countour-hugging guidance and, no
more than two seconds before its own impact also fired an air-to-
ground missile into the Pentagon ahead of? its own collision.
Pay close attention to 1) the F-16 silhouette; 2) the white
plume of the missile being fired; 3) the super-white-hot initial blast
characteristic of the high-explosives of a ground to air missile and not
of burning jet or helicopter fuel --
David Bosankoe of the U.K. has enlarged a section
of the clip of the Pentagon attack event taken by
security video camera and released by the Department
of Defense, but he has also gathered other supporting
evidence that you may review at:
In addition, far ranging debate on this topic has been
conducted in the uk.politics.crime Usenet newsgroup,
which you may access at
and typing in uk.politics.crime.
After close examination I am convinced that the
clip does supports neither the official story of a Boeing
757 hitting the building, nor the "French "where's the plane?"
site story that "no plane at all" was involved in the deadly explosions.
It is also significant that the one pilot who claimed to have witnessed
a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon also claimed that the airliner "dived"
into the side of the building --and so by the D.o.D.'s own video
he is discredited.
Here are two letters relevant to this topic, the first dealing with the
Pentagon attack deception and the second in reply to the Atlanta
Journal-Constitution's attack on Rep. Cynthia McKinney's after her call for
an investigation into the events of September 11.
Dick Eastman
223 S. 64th Ave.
Yakima, Washington 98908
(509) 965-4893
Letter #1:
Dear Mr McNicoll,
A colleague of mine in Australia faxed to me the paragraph
in your column in The Australian of April 5, 2002 (p.11).
For the benefit of other readers of this message, which will
soon be appearing on my Serendipity website, I quote the
first half of your paragraph:
??? Big bang theory
??? FURTHER to the conspiracy theory -- that no aircraft hit
??? the Pentagon last September -- which is being expounded
??? by French author Thierry Meyssan in his book 'The Frightening
??? Fraud'.? Should you wish to see some of the pictures of the
??? Pentagon attack which have a large number of French citizens
??? no longer believing the official US government story, you can
??? access them online. ...
by the more direct URL:
It should be noted that this site does not say that no aircraft
hit the Pentagon.? It could be taken to suggest that the damage
was caused by a truck bomb, but a careful inspection will reveal
that the site suggests only that the damage was NOT caused
by a Boeing 757.
The thesis by the French author is either mistaken, or it is another
instance of what Carol Valentine has called "the fake opposition"
As one commentator, Dick Eastman, puts it:
>The French "no-plane" thesis is disinformation? --
>it is the sending in of a buffoon to refute a clown.
>It's an old trick? --? if the "official" version? is absurd
>and readily dismissed by simple direct inspection of
>physical evidence? --? then the deception can only be
>defended by "puffing" a counter explanation that is even
>more absurd.
Or in other words, an alternative explanation is presented
which purports to deny the truth of the official story, but
the alternative is either grossly implausible or is easily refuted
by reference to the evidence.? The discrediting of the alternative
is then used to support the official version.
The problem with Meyssan's thesis is that a plane actually did
hit the Pentagon -- but it wasn't a Boeing 757. As Dick Eastman
has pointed out, what actually happened is that a (probably remotely
controlled) F-16 fighter jet flew into the Pentagon, hitting it
a moment after it released a missile.? You can see this in the
images released by the Pentagon --
Frame 1: The outline of a fighter jet, probably an F-16,
is visible toward the right of the picture.
A larger version of this frame can be viewed at
Frame 2: A huge, white-hot, fireball erupts.? Such an
intensely hot fireball would not result from the ignition
of jet fuel but would result from the detonation of a
missile carrying a high-explosive warhead.
Frames 3, 4 and 5: Here you see the red fireball resulting
from the impact of the jet.
The damage to the Pentagon is not consistent with an impact
by a 757 Boeing jetliner but is consistent with the explosion
of a missile plus the impact of an F-16 jet.
So if it was an F-16 jet which hit the Pentagon, what happened
to AA Flight 77, the Boeing jet which, according to the official
story, hit the Pentagon?? And what happened to the passengers
on board this jet?
The answer has been given by an informant of Carol Valentine
(see, from which
we may construct the following account (in part) of what happened
on September 11th:
1.? Some time after Flight 77 takes off its pilots are informed
that the U.S. is under attack and that they are to shut
down their transponder and land their plane at the nearest
military base (directions to the base are given).? The pilots
obey this order.
2.? The Twin Towers are hit by planes (but not AA Flight 11
or UA Flight 175, which are also diverted to the same
military base) and shortly after are brought down in
a controlled demolition by means as yet undetermined, but
possibly by explosives within the buildings.
3.? An F-16, probably remotely controlled, approaches the
Pentagon at ground level, fires a missile, and a split-second
later crashes into the building.
4.? The official (pre-written) story of a simultaneous hijacking
of four Boeing passenger jets by Arab terrorists acting under orders
from Osama bin Laden is released to the U.S. mainstream media
and promoted non-stop by the media whores.
5.? The passengers from AA Flight 77, AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175
are herded onto UA Flight 175, which (as with the other three flights)
has been ordered to land at the same military base.
6.? UA Flight 175 takes off from the military base and flies toward
Washington.? It is shot down by a U.S. Air Force fighter jet over
Pennsylvania.? All passengers and crew from all four "hijacked" planes
(other than those who are part of the operation) are killed.
Thus those who planned and carried out the September 11th attacks
not only caused the deaths of about 3,000 people in the Twin Towers
and a few hundred military personnel at the Pentagon, but also
deliberately murdered about 200 people who were on board the four
Boeing jetliners to eliminate witnesses to their "high crimes".
We may reasonably guess at who they are (George W. Bush, Dick Cheney
and Donald Rumsfeld come to mind).? If the identities of the perpetrators
are ever established they know they will go before a firing squad.
Therefore we can be sure that (unless they are removed from their
present positions of influence) they will do whatever they deem necessary
to escape detection, even if this means causing the deaths of yet more
thousands of American citizens in "terrorist" attacks.
Peter Meyer
Here is James S. Robbins, National-Security Analyst and National Review
contributor caught in his lie to the American people and to the world -- his
lie about the Pentagon attack.? [It is interesting that another
ultra-conservative publisher, Regnery, also claims to have seen a diving
757.? Hmmm.]
Likewise with the Sept. 11 attacks, it is incumbent to remember, and through
memory to prevent similar events from happening again. The images of the WTC
attacks speak for themselves. Where video is lacking, as in the case of
Flight 77 (which is more proof of the plot, says Meyssan) it is up to the
eyewitnesses to tell their stories.
So here's mine. I was in my Washington office doing research when one of the
secretaries told me that an aircraft had hit the World Trade Center. We
brought the news up on the projection screen in our darkened conference room
and watched the coverage, seeing endless six-foot high replays of the
impacts and explosions. It was unsettling, even disorienting, but my
colleagues and I were appraising it professionally, trading theories on who
was to blame and how the terrorists coordinated the attacks. We did not come
to any firm conclusions.
I went back to my office around 9:20. A short time later a friend of mine
called, an Air Force officer, and we spoke awhile about the strikes in New
York. I was standing, looking out my large office window, which faces west
and from six stories up has a commanding view of the Potomac and the
Virginia heights. (When I hired on my boss said we had the best view in
town. True, most days.) The Pentagon is about a mile and half distant in the
center of the tableau. I was looking directly at it when the aircraft
struck. The sight of the 757 diving in at an unrecoverable angle is frozen
in my memory, but at the time, I did not immediately comprehend what I was
witnessing. There was a silvery flash, an explosion, and a dark, mushroom
shaped cloud rose over the building. I froze, gaping for a second until the
sound of the detonation, a sharp pop at that distance, shook me out of it. I
shouted something both extremely profane and sacrilegious and told my
friend, "They hit the Pentagon. We're under attack. Gotta go."
I hung up the phone and turned back to the window to see the dark cloud
spreading. I yelled down the hall, "Look out the window!" I heard gasps
outside, and a researcher dashed into my office and stared. I grabbed my
bags and said I was getting out of the building and invited others to do the
same. I took the elevator down and walked to the edge of the greensward, in
easy view of the Pentagon across the river. I set down my bags and stood in
the dew soaked grass, seeing the brilliant blue sky filling with rolling
clouds of smoke. The blackness stretched south the length of the horizon.
The adrenaline of the initial shock had worn off a bit, and I was able to
take in the enormity of the event. Even more than witnessing the plane
crash, I remember those long helpless minutes standing in the grass.
So, of course, I take it personally when a half-wit like Meyssan comes along
saying it did not happen. And he is so evidently at war with reality that
one is tempted not to waste time with him. His ideas are obviously foolish,
easily disproved, an affront to any reasoning person. It would be easy to
ignore him. But that would be a mistake. This is another front in what
President Bush called "the war to save civilization itself." The history of
the 20th century should show that no idea is so absurd that it cannot take
destructive hold and play havoc with societies, even to the point of
sanctioning mass murder. Allowing the extremists to go unchallenged only
encourages them. People like Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot and other millennial
criminals were just like Meyssan at one point in their careers. If they had
been opposed more vigorously sooner, perhaps they never would have attained
power. When such ideas are allowed to stand, they take root among the
impressionable or those predisposed to think the worst. And especially now
that communications technology has made it possible to give global reach to
the bizarre and archive it forever, it is essential for men and women of
reason resolutely to counter the delusions of the fringe element.
I was there. I saw it.
Letter #2:
To the Editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
My Opinion on the Way You are Handling the McKinney Case
by Paul Walker
I would appreciate it very much if you would cease the politically-motivated
dirt-digging and attacks on Ms McKinney's character and instead do an
objective jounalistic investigation into the claims that she has put
forward. No matter what her motives may be, the facts are the facts.
Fact: Carlyle Group directly benefits from an eternal Orwellian war against
the "Evil Ones".
Fact: The bin Ladins and the Bushes have been in bed finacially raking in
hundreds of millions together on big oil, construction and defense contracts
for decades.
Fact: The "War on Terrorism" has been planned for several years in the back
rooms of the Council on Foreign Relations as a pretext for control of the
Caspian Basin oil reserves (see Brzezinski, Grand Chessboard).
Fact: The CIA supervises the Pakistani ISI intelligence who are instrumental
in funding and training terrorists all over the Eurasia and the Middle East.
Fact: Clinton had numerous opportunities to nail bin Ladin and refused to do
Fact: Bin Ladin was, and still is a CIA-ISI pointman/assett.
Fact: The CIA put the murderous Taliban into power (a specialty of theirs)
in 1996 and funded them (and bin Ladin) right up through last summer.
Fact: The CIA met with bin Ladin in July in Dubai (Le Figaro)
Fact: The US government had not only prior knowledge of the attacks of
September 11th, but deliberately created all the necessary conditions for it
to happen. For historical precedents see, National Security Archives for the
Operation Northwoods document and Day of Deceit by Robert Stinnet.
Fact: The media is chockfull of gutless, spineless shills, operative
minions, and cheerleeding propagandists who are lying to the people,
complicit in the attacks on both the WTC and on our Constitutional rights
and couldn't whip up an honest investigative piece to save their souls.
So get your facts straight and start telling the truth if you have any
patriotism, humanity, guts or integrity left.
I challenge any of you jounalist shills out there to refute any of the
points I have made.
Paul Walker
Santa Barbara, CA
Finally, I recommend these 11 September frame-up criminal investigation
? Michael C. Ruppert Sherman H. Skolnick

Back to Main

W3 page maintained by Agent Fescado