All the Evidence we Need


Here is enough to put away for life most of the top men in the Administration. Decide for yourself whether or not Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Kissinger and Gingrich are innocent or guilty of mass-murder.


(Note the small short jet, the missile plume, the tell-tale white-hot initial explosion of the missile warhead. A Boeing 757 aircraft is  more than twice the 71-foot height of the Pentagon, whereas the attacking craft shown is no more than 50 feet long.)    


Take the first frame in this sequence (above.)  Take the straight edge of a  piece of paper and place it running from tail to nose of the image of the aircraft; then using the edge   as a rule, make a mark on the paper next to the right-most point of the aircraft (either the tip of the tail fin or the end of the exhaust area under the tail) then, with the first point still anchored on the left-most point of the plane, mark a second point on the edge of the paper right where you estimate the tip of the nose (radome) to be.  

This  gives you the length of the plane's image in the picture, marked on the edge of the paper -- and we will call that distance unit one "apl"  (apparent plane length).  

Next, look at the picture and locate the point along the wall where you think the  plane's nose hit the building (forgetting that a missile got there first).  

Now place your 1 apl length measure vertically over the dot you located on the image of the Pentagon to compare length of plane image with height of Pentagon image at point of impact (i.e., you have stood the image of the plane up against the image of the Pentagon  at the spot of impact to compare heights.)  

My 1 apl is always shorter than the Pentagon wall.  

Now, if the Pentagon image is 70 arbitrary units in height at the identified point of  impact, then my 1 apl line is equal to about 50, or 45, but never 60 units in length.  

But the Pentagon is further away than the plane in the first frame of the sequence -- it is further to the left of the center of the camera view than the plane is to the right --  But this means that the error in the above exercise, due to perspective and distance, errs on the side of representing the plane as bigger than it is. The image of the plane is closer than the image of the point of impact on the Pentagon. Thus is, if you add the factor of distance from camera, you must subtract length from the plane, not add. If the image of the plane is  50/70ths of the height of the Pentagon at that the target point, then the actual plane must have been shorter than 50/70ths of the Pentagons 71-foot height.  

But claims that  the plane came in at a 45 degree angle and that therefore  the image of the plane in the picture is foreshortened.  They make this claim solely on the basis of a hole in Ring C of the Pentagon which they claim, following Pentagon official statements, was made by a jet engine breaking through after the crash. But the hole is well off to the side, not at all straight across from where the plane entered the building, but well to the right.  Too well off to the side, too well to the right to be believable  -- because between this hole in C-ring and any possible point of initial entry of the plane into the front facade of the building there is a large section of untouched A-ring offices right in the way.  The engine could not have gone around those offices after entering A-ring to reach that hole.  Whatever the explanation of that hole, it is not the exit hole of the jet engine resulting from the collision of the jet.  This explanation of the hole in C-ring is totally discredited by simple inspection of shots of the damage from the lawn and from the air.  (I will download these photos to anyone upon request  -- or visit the "French site" listed below.)  The evidence for a 45-degree angle approach is totally spurious. Conclusion: A view of the entry point and the location of the C-ring hole shows that the engine could not have made the  hole because a straight line from any possible entry point along the damaged front  cannot be connected to the C-ring hole without passing through a large section of totally untouched portions of A-ring offices  -- sections of undamaged office  that were not even cleared away in the cleanup!  


The plane hit the facade at nearly a 90-degree angle. Note that  the port side of the plane's tail fin appears to be facing the camera.  Note also, that the poles are directly across from the plane so that if the plane hit a pole near the two trees then it approached the face of the building at roughly a 90 degree angle just as the video indicates.  

There is no reason for claiming that the image of this plane has been foreshortened by 300 percent because of angle of approach.  The trail of smoke precludes that possibility; the full facing of the tail fin precludes that possibility; and the course of the plane from first frame to collision precludes that possibility.  

In short, there is no way you can massage mathematical equations and get a plane that is 100 feet long, i.e., longer than the Pentagon is tall, much less on that is 155 feet long.  


Ron Harvey says that 5 poles were downed.  

Ever hear that from any other source?  

I saw eye witness testimony that one  pole was "clipped."  

I also read the Holmgen analysis of serious problems with all media witnesses accounts that were represented as supporting the contention that a Boeing was seen hitting the Pentagon.  In fact the reliable reporting is of witnesses claiming to have seen a smaller plane, to have heard a fighter jet or a missile, not an airliner.   

I have not seen a picture of five downed poles.  If there is one I would like to ask whether it was faked, or whether the poles  were taken down  well after the accident and photographed then  -- you will notice that in the picture Harvey does send that the downed poles are not shown with the Pentagon wreckage in the background.  Would YOU take a picture of downed poles without "telling the story" by getting the Pentagon in the background?  Obviously the picture was taken to tell a story about poles, not about the appearance of the Pentagon area at the time of the shot.  And if you took the pictures to establish Harvey's theory, would you not want to get a shot of the line of broken poles leading right to the damage area?  Where is such a picture?  

We are also well aware of the C-130 that was reported by one or more witnesses  -- it has figured in several postings (mine included)  --  but since we know that it was not a C-130 that the security camera caught attacking the Pentagon, it has not been given much attention, because it does not make the case. It is a mystery, it should not have been there, but it is not part of the smoking gun evidence that is the "small-jet" attack.  

I do not call the Pentagon evidence that you gentlemen have made so obvious "smoking gun" evidence merely to flatter David Bosankoe  -- I call it that because it is the only evidence that unequivocally establishes that a Boeing did not hit the Pentagon.  And it does so in multiple, mutually reinforcing ways:  1) the length of the plane, 2) the missile plume, 3) the white-heat of the initial explosion tell-tale of high explosive, and 4) the horizontal approach (countering all witnesses who saw an airliner dive "at an irrecoverable angle" followed by smoke  -- not refuting what they saw, but establishing that the plane they saw was another plane, a plane that did not crash into the Pentagon, a plane that may or may not have been Flight 77.  

Ron Harvey is saying that the security video evidence could be a "red herring"  (as when a man being stalked  puts out some smelly herring fish to throw dogs off his scent. ) Ron Harvey is not only presenting flawed data, he is arguing for dismissal of the video evidence.  

How easy it is for a good lawyer to twist up people in a jury.  

Yet Harvey does not address the plume, or the horizontal approach, or the white hot explosion. He claims, without real evidence, that five poles were down -- and therefore everything established by the video camera recording of the disaster is of no value.  Yet, his five poles down -- if photographs of this exist -- are no more valid than the videos of bin Laden that weren't bin Laden at all  -- and for all we know they could have been  created in the same laboratory  (that is if they were not taken of the poles during "repairs" days after the event.)  

The evidence is not based on our veracity or our mental acuity. We have functioned as  scientists.  We have  analyzed this data, and we  told people how we did it so they could replicate or procedures and check our results -- the replication criterion of scientific validity.  Yet the Bosankoe sequencing of the frames is not essential to making this case.  The  same story is told by the stills viewed separately, except it is not as immediately obvious as with the animation of the frames in sequence.  

Gentlemen, let me add this one last remark.  

You have seen the data day after day.  It is old to you. You want something new to grip people with.  You want new means of verifying the story.  You want support from a variety of sources.  You have been showing the video for months and no one has offered you the Congressional Medal of Honor yet or the Victoria Cross.   And you know that those you talk with every day have seen it again and again  -- and that the internet likes novelty and sensation  -- and so many people are trying to save the nation by disclosing the most recent enormity committed by our deviant elites.  

And so you are tempted to leave this story, and go on to new things.  

But gentlemen, this is the only "smoking gun" --   the very fact that the media refuses to pick it up, pretending that the French approach to the Pentagon case is the only one, is proof enough that the perpetrators know what you have here.  

And Ron Harvey, with his five downed poles, is telling you that pursuing the Pentagon security cam evidence will harm the case because it is a red herring.  

Just as another guy was recently approaching me, saying that he was going for the economic evidence (i.e., the short sells)  and that the "physical evidence guys"  (us) were ruining the case they were building and making them look bad (i.e., red herring again).  

Remember the term "Red Herring" in American politics was introduced by Truman against McCarthy after McCarthy's speech in the Senate revealing the role of George C. Marshall in betraying Chaing Kai-shek and helping Mao and his communists to victory in China. We know now that McCarthy was right.  (By the way, McCarthy was not part of the House Un-American Activities Committee that investigated actors and writers etc.  He only made a rash accusation about one individual who had indeed been a Communist  -- but a good lawyer made him sympathetic and a martyr  -- successfully discrediting McCarthy in public opinion.  In short, the term "red Herring" as it was used, aided the cover-up of the very real communist conspiracy that lost China  --  I live next door to the son of Pandergast's lawyer (Herb Riddle) who ran Truman's early campaigns in Missouri  -- even Truman was not free from the taint of crookedness -- admirable as he is to me in many ways  -- forgive the digression  -- don't loose my point:  

Don't let someone "red-herring" you out of the smoking gun evidence that can bring the world  justice.  

Also, I hope is not the guy from nerdcity. It he is then, between him and Ron Harvey and his lampposts,  I'd say that someone is trying to do a number on you, and that you had better realize it fast.  

Think about it and let me know.  


PENTAGON NO-BOEING EVIDENCE ANALYSIS SITES (wholeheartedly endorsed and recommended)

E. O. Fescado: 

Jarred Israel (mirror of emperors-cloths)  

French Sites (in English) and Thierry Meyssan 
Ultimate 911 frame-up overview.  



Mike Ruppert  

Other highly recommended:  Sherman Skolnik  Carol A. Valentine  Truthout (mirror of emperors-cloths),3604,737060,00.html  





The Power Hour:
(7-10am CST)
иииListen Live

Listen FREE thru Global Star Satellite Feed






All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:

Copyright © 2007. The Power Hour. All rights reserved.