www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
I have challenged Judge and Hence to debate myself and Kaminsky on the Commission's efficacy and on the sufficiency and conclusiveness of the evidence that no airliner crashed into the Pentagon. Here is that challenge: All right, Mr. Judge and Mr. Hence -- we will debate on the air with Mr. Rense (or Tom Valentine, or Victor Thorn etc. -- you pick the forum, gentlemen.) ---------------------------------- My position: Citizen's Watch, the soi-disant "responsible and competent" "watchdogs" monitoring the 9-11 Commission, founded by John Judge and Kyle Hence, has taken a position with respect to 9-11 investigators who have reached the conclusion that neither AA Flight 77, nor any Boeing 757, nor any commercial airliner crashed at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. For example, John has explained his urging that my findings be dismissed out of hand by stating that what I have provided is "speculations" born of anti-establishmentarian ideology not scientifically or lintelligently based on evidence. John further represents that I have insisted with fanatic's zeal that everyone must accept my conclusions because I say so or else be branded a conspiracy traitor. At the same time, he exalts his objectivity and scientific procedure with the credential that he has not reached any conclusions in his capacity as investigator and watchdog, implying that not reaching conclusions is the touchstone criteria of an unbiased mind capable of sound judgement in the case. I deny any speculation on my part. I deny any ideological loading or biasing in my analysis of evidence and the resulting isolation of logical implications. Rather than weave a conspiracy, as John's characterization of my work implies I have done, my sole procedure has been to subject the official story, i.e., the Boeing-did-it-thesis, to the the physical evidence, the photographic evidence and to witness accounts. My conclusions have been the work of elimination of elimination of official story and the arguments defending the official story by establishing that these stories contradict what the photographs of the crash site (before the collapse of the wall), what the pictures of the attack from the security video camera show, what the civil engineers have reported, what the witnesses agree in reporting (airliner over the Naval Annex, over the gas station etc.) My conclusion does not tell what happened, but it eliminates by disproof from evidence, of what could not have happened. For example, a two engined airliner could not have crashed centered on pillar 14 because there is no corresponding damage that would have resulted from a starboard engine hitting between pillars 17 and 18 where several photos show interior wall still standing where the engine would have had to have smashed through. For example, the white trail of smoke behind the tail fin cannot be contrail, it being too thick and "creamy" and too exactly like a photograph showing the trail made by an air-to-ground missile being fired by an F-16 rather than the pictures of off-wing turbulence in comparison. For example, in the seccurity camera picture that follows the picture of the missile smoke trail we see the 200 ft high white-hot explosion that represents too much energy being released at one time to be accounted for by an aluminum airliner with kerosene jet fuel (which burns red and organge) hitting a reinforced structure office building. In short my conclusions are of this type: The various established evidence and witness testimony is inconsistent with the airliner that people saw over the Annex and gas station being what hit the Pentagon and what caused the explosion the security camera recorded. In all I have presented 14 impossible contradictions between the evidence and the "Boeing-did-it" story. If you look at the archived evidence presentations, 911pentagon and 911_demonstrative_evidence_of_frameup yahoogroup boards you will see that all of my conclusions are arrived at by testing the official story against the physical, photographic and witness evidence, starting with the facts and drawing implications with the logical deductive method.. Or maybe I am a liar. I challenge John Judge and Kyle Hence to name the "speculation" they say I have made. Let them point out even one example of a conclusion that is not evidentary-data-based and evidentary-data-controlled. I challenge them to even show that they are familiar with my findings by stating, in their own words, at least three or four of the nine evidence-based proofs that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. But, understand one thing. All of the above does not mean that after having, by a processing of elimination by testing against evidence, reached the conclusion that neither the Boeing nor any other airliner crashed at the Pentagon, that, having established that, I have not gone on, building from that evidence-derived conclusion, to explore the implications of the act -- namely that Pentagon leadership and the White House must know what did not really hit their military world headquarters building, and that -- no big jump -- they must be intimately involved in the crime, in the, I conclude, mass-murder frameup. So tell me John Judge and Kyle Hence -- where is my speculation not based on fact? Where is my conclusion pulled out of a hat merely because I am a political extremist. And let me add this. Unlike readers who are coming to this "altercation" mid-stream, I know how illogical and unfair and dishonest John Judge's treatment of investigators who have reached conclusions from the known data are -- and he does not ever criticize, say, Sarah Roberts, Mike Rivero, Ron Harvey, Joe Vialls who "reach the conclusion" on the presently known information that the Boeing did hit the Pentagon, but reserves his criticism only for those who dared to conclude the opposite -- so that the "sin" of reaching conclusions based on existing evidence is absolved if you happen to reach a conclusion that supports the Administration, but not if you really sift the data and isolate the critical evidence which establishes the smallness of the aircraft, the missile-warhead intensity of the initial explosion etc. I expect a response from John Judge on this. And I expect those who continue to elevate John Judge and Citizens Watch as the most credible and responsible of the "9-11 sceptics" (so-called) to also defend their choice of denegrating my work and elevating Judge and Hence as the only competent evaluators of the work of the 9-11 Commission. I speak for myself here. Let other 9-11 investigators speak for themselves. Dick Eastman Yakima, Washington Every man is repsonsible to every other man. ======================== Incidentally, Kaminski points out that if there was a fire that burned up the aluminum airliner to nearly nothing (impossible by the way), then how possibly could the DNA identifications on all the passengers been made by Rumsfeld's appointed forensics team when DNA is totally destroyed in temperatures above a mere 200 degrees F. ================================== Finally, here again is my recent note on Judge and Ruppert's sudden shift of position against involvement to support the new, as Peter Meyer and Carol Valentine (and me too) call it, "fake opposition" : ------------------- Ruppert has been stonewalling, but now that Citizen's Watch is on the scene doing a constrained blinders-on "pc" "watchdog's-view-from-master's-lap" show of investigating what Ruppert has avoided before -- he now changes his tune, praising Judge and Hence, where my efforts of 20 months Ruppert studiously ignored. Here is Ruppert's fake "repentence:" > I have always stated that the "independent" 9/11 commission > would be a failure, and that it was intended to be a whitewash. > But thanks to diligent efforts to slam the documentary (and > unscientific) record in their faces by victim families, 9/11 > Citizen's Watch and other groups and individuals, that > commission has been forced to subpoena the FAA to find > out why fighters were not scrambled on 9/11. It has been > embarrassed to the point of threatening to subpoena the > White House on foreknowledge, and it has now engaged > in an inexcusable compromise to protect the incriminating > secrets we know are there. So Mike Ruppert is saying we can thank John Judge and Kyle Hence for getting the Commission on 9-11 to supoena the FAA to find out why fighters were not scrambled??? Come again? Supoena the who? And the FAA would know what about the Air Force's exclusive business of intercepting potential security threats besides nothing? Obviously Ruppert is writing a love letter to the new look of the coverup. I am not impressed by Ruppert's praise of Judge and Hence and Citizen's Watch. Look carefully at the defense these two highly suspicious "watchdogs" give the coverup. Judge says you can't trust anyone who has already reached a conclusion, that to reach a conclusion is ipso facto proof of prejudicial bias. He asserts, wrongly and based on God knows what, that I somehow reached my conclusions before I looked at any data and then promulgated those conclusions without any real evidentary basis -- which is not at all true, as every step of my interaction with the data in reaching conclusions is archived in yahoogroups and Usegroups as no other investigator's.. More than anyone else, I show my work; I share my progress notes. THE FACT IS THAT MY CONCLUSIONS ARE WHAT IS LEFT AFTER CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, KNOCKING DOWN EVERY UNSUPPORTABLE EXPLANATION INCUDING THE "OFFICAL (COVERUP) STORY" UNTIL ONLY ONE POSSIBILITY REMAINS, THE EXPLANATION THAT FITS EVERYTHING IS KNOWN, WHAT SCIENTIFIC INVESTAGATION FORCES US TO CONCLUDE IS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. And not only does Judge say that those who have already reached a conclusion can't be trusted, but Kyle Hence adds that those researchers who are proceedingly objectively without stating conclusions at this point also become suspect if they are tainted by contact with researchers who have dared to violate scientific proceedure by actually daring to reach a conclusion from evidence. How Judge comes by this monumentally stupid and disingenuous judgement is truly amazing. He asserts that all existing evidence, i.e., the photos of the crash site, the security camera pictures of the attack in progress, the witness accounts, the civil engineers structural report, the data on the aircraft, the physics, chemistry, chemsitry facts that have been appealed to -- are all insufficient to reach any declaration and that the only possible source for significant information is the documents not currently released that only whatchdogs Judge and Hence and their staff are competent to know about and ask for. John Judge rejected my information without a hearing -- the archived records show this -- in fact he entered the investigation scene making the assertion that the even the possibility that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon was too absurd to spent even a moment seriously considering. Yet at the same time, he defended his closing of the question with what must be the most transparent witness falsehood of the entire 9-11 story. Judge has written that his stewardess friend saw and recongized the tail fin of Flight 77 in the wreckage. He asserts that she was able to identify the particular 757 as the 757 she regularly flew in from the wreckage she saw. He claims that she was able to pick out a photo of her stewardess co-worker when shown a photograph of a severed arm with a bracelette that she and her friend both wore. He tells us that this stewardess was given clearance to walk around in the wreckage to make positive identification of the plane -- back when no one was yet quesitoning whether a Boeing had really crashed there or not. And based on this, Judge was able to wave away, to dismiss without even looking, all the photographic evidence showing the too-small-hole, the too-short aircraft, the smoke trial of the air-to-ground missile, the 200 ft. high white-hot explosion, the lack of debris on the grass, the proven piece of 757 debris that was planted and photographed hundreds of feet north of the crash but which was a piece of an AA757 that could only have come from the starboard side which side, for the actual killer jet that hit the Pentagon, was facing south, not north; etc. etc. Judge is also known to have said that the Airliner hit the ground before hitting the building. But the untouched grass belies that story. Judge is one of those who spread the impossible physics story of the wings of the plane folding back and entering the hole made by the fuselage. Judge also spoke as though the Boeing crashed with its landing gear down, and that the landing gear "sheared off" the passenger side of a car that was there. None of the physical evidence supports Judge's statements. Quite the contrary. Yet he has managed to assume a superior standing and pontificat my blacklisting from the ranks of serious responsible and creditable investigators like him, who don't reach anything so vulgar as conclusions from the data. Kyle Hence has joined Judge in this exclusive-club of "responsible" investigators mentality -- saying that the Physics911 group may be tainted because of contact with investigators who have -- gasp! -- drawn conclusions from careful examination and consideration the data that exists and is available. I say Kyle Hence and John Judge are a new layer of coverup -- the fake opposition that will be puffed by media and other moles in the investigation community -- so that they and they alone will be giving the "responsible" critique of the 9-11 commission. No way John Judge and Kyle Hence are playing honest. These two disqualify any investigator who has reached a conclusion simply on the grounds that he has dared to reach a conclusion. Never mind that they are denying the standing of the hardest photographic evidence and witness testimony. Judge has all but declared that since he has rejected data and the conclusions drawn from the data of hand, that that implies that he has the highest scientific standards and is better researchers -- and thus he and Hense alone are good enough to form valid opinions about the merit of the work of the 9-11 Commission. In other words, just cover your eyes and play the sceptical naysayer and the mantle of more rigorous science will be conferred upon you. But that is not right. The better scientist is the one who takes all the data into account and who draws those implications and only those implications that can be derived from that data. This I have done. What John Judge has done is to cover his ears and shout "no, no, no." without giving any analysis, without even engaging the hardest data. The fact is that John Judge is not even familiar with the data. And this will be their verdict. John Judge and Kyle Hence will get in front of some microphones and they will say: "There are serious questions about 9-11, and unfortunately no significant conclusions can be drawn without the release of documents that the administration has refused to provide and which the Commission has compromised in settling for less of which than what would be sufficient to get to he bottom of the matter. Thus alas, we are duely disgusted and register our protest, but too bad, nothing can be concluded and it is a disgrace so thank you very much we tried." And they will be the great heroes, written up in so many mass paperback editions -- "the heroes who almost cracked the case" but were prevented from doing so by prevading secrecy. yada yada yada " You doubt it?. Wait and see. Dick Eastman Yakima, Washington Every man is responsible to every other man. The evidence presented below conclusively establishes many times over that 9-11 was the work of Pentagon insiders Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Meyer, Perle, Kissinger, Gingrich and Vice President Richard Cheney. A jet fighter and an air-to-ground missile were used in the surgical ground-floor attack, while the Boeing 757 overflew the explosion and crash and landed at Reagan National only one mile ahead and to the right. This fact establishes top Pentagon leadership's involvement, as Rumsfeld et al. immediately begain acting and reinforcing the now obviously untrue coverup. The evidence of the true nature of the attack, presented among the following, is sufficient to convince any impartial jury anywhere in the world. http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3 http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/10 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/18 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/3 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/1 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/2 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/3 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/26 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/7 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/38 http://www.freedomfiles.org/war http://physics911.org/net/ http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm http://www.911dossier.co.uk/ http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm http://www.the-movement.com/Hijackers/Agents.htm http://www.waronfreedom.mediamonitors.net/index.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/2 http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/PentagonCrash.html http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html http://www.etherzone.com http://www.antiwar.com http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html#preface http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
