What Don't You Understand


This discussion came to us by email  we didn't  write it, but is sure is interesting..

Stick with this one  -- it starts boring, but it warms up.  

Two things of note  --   

1)  Webfairy has found the clincher proving the whatzit is a day stealth cruise missile used to murder so many New Yorkers in the frame-up attack on the WTC North Tower on Sept. 11, 2001. This strongest possible evidence reinforces the other incontrovertible clincher evidence of the security cam video of the small-jet and missile attack on the Pentagon  -- double "smoking-guns" fully sufficient to convict the Frame-up Junta now in control of our Government of the most horrible single act of murder in our history.   All that is wanting for justice to begin moving is that the American public  learn about this evidence, understand the implications, and do the preliminary work of throwing out the whore bipartisan CFR Congress  who lap dance for Big Business who created a climate in America where super rich  Americans believe they can  murder other Americans, whom they feel to be lower class and thus inferior)  to provide false pretext for attacking two  totally innocent even scrupulously moral Moslem nations  for the sake of oil monopoly, and of continuing opium/heroin laundered revenues into Establishment investment banks for investment in China's proletarian slave factories, strengthening the most ruthless and powerful dictatorship by organized crime in the world. (e.g., remember the magnificently heroic, moral and correct stand of Mullah Omar when confronted by the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz "shoot first talk later" criminality.)  So now we have two smoking guns, each ample to convict, and no investigation worthy of the name.  

And that explains why the other noteworthy item has suddenly appeared.  Understand Brian Downing Quig is doing, and you will certainly no longer be a babe in the woods when it comes to psy-op discrediting of critical convicting evidence.  

Now for the BIG EVENT.  

2)  Brian Downing Quig,  in his "Abstract of 9/11 evidence," has given a well-stated summary of -- now get this!  --  of only the inconclusive and equivocal circumstantial evidence that points to a 9/11 frame-up -- the supporting evidence that by itself is not "smoking gun" evidence, that is merely evidence of the kind that a Philadelphia lawyer can easily cast sufficient doubt and uncertainty over to keep any  grand jury from handing down an indictment.  The key to any defense of the Frame-up Junta is to see to it that the Security Cam evidence and the whatzit evidence are never presented.

The reader will recall  that I asked Quig, why he so scrupulously avoided even mentioning the existence of the Defense Department Security Camera video that shows the actual attacking small jet, the missile it fired, the characteristic missile explosion?  Why did he write such an effective "abstract of 9/11 evidence,"  and distribute it so widely in channels where the Pentagon evidence is well known, while not even mentioning this "smoking fun"  that by itself can carry the day in any case against the Junta?

With his response (below)  to my inquiry, I am forced to conclude that Quig's purpose in writing his "9-11 Abstract" has  been to defeat the best Pentagon evidence by establishing himself as a "911 expert" and then, on the basis of credibility her gains for himself in defending all the weak and inconclusive evidence, using his thus acquired credibility capital to brush aside and pooh-pooh the only totally sufficient and conclusive evidence that could win the case.

Quig  must have anticipated that  we would all welcome his added articulate and intelligent voice,   that we would be grateful to him, a man with courage who spoke up at a time when our calls for an investigation based on the real evidence were being universally ignored in all but our own circle of the awake and the informed.   He must also have anticipated that we would follow the lead of this clear-thinking clear-writing champion and wander away from video  frames that show both the attack on the WTC by the watzit stealth cruise missile and the small-jet-with-missile attack on the Pentagon.

I am convinced that  Brian Downing Quig began his writing project, his spin operation, having already  identified the two smoking guns that can bring conviction of the 9-11 Junta, that he knew this evidence could hang the traitor killers now riding high.  And I am convinced that knowing all that,  he deliberately undertook, with psy-op ingratiation and spin wearing good-guy-stripe camouflage --  to trick us into abandoning our only sure case.  

Now let's look at Quig's reply:

Brian Downing Quig wrote:

> If there was a second small plane then it is still not
> worth mentioning.   I have seen more professional
> disinformation regarding these "other planes" then for
> any other cover up effort of the crime.
> That is because what I have said about the planes being > the conclusive proof is so conclusive that the spin doctors > are concentrating on it.
> I suggest you try to study this issue and fully understand it
> before you come back with some defense of some insignificant
> detail.
> Brian
> And please webfairy hold your comment for me by phone
> which is better.
> Dick Eastman wrote:
>> Dear Mr. Quig, Your essay summarizing reasons for
> >concluding that Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz etc. are complicit
> > in the September 11 killings is very persuasive, but please tell
> > me why you chose not to include the Pentagon security video
> > evidence of a small plane attack?  Are you aware of this evidence?
> > What is your attitude towards this information? Are you aware that
> > by writing such an otherwise complete case for  the complicity of the
> > administration in this monstrous crime you are, through your omission
> > of it, as much as saying that you to not recognize what is the most
> > conclusive evidence of all? Please explain this omission.
> > Dick Eastman
> >Yakima, Washington.

Analysis:   Quig (in black) says  
> If there was a second small plane then it is still not
> worth mentioning. 

DE (red):  A "second" small plane?  This is totally disingenuous. Quig knows full well  the one small plane was the only plane that hit the Pentagon.  He knows this has always been our claim.   He knows that what I asked him about was THE ONE AND ONLY PLANE IN THE DoD SECURITY CAM VIDEO THAT IS SHOWN ATTACKING THE PENTAGON  -- yet weasel Brian Quig spins and deflects and misrepresents, hoping that readers are asleep or have just walked in on the conversation -- BRIAN,  CERTAINLY THE PLANE CAUGHT IN THE ACT ATTACKING THE PENTAGON -- THE ONLY PLANE I HAVE REFERRED TO IN THIS DISCUSSION -- IS VERY MUCH WORTH MENTIONING  --  but equally certain is it that you have just let slip your goal of attempting to see to it  that this powerful evidence not be mentioned.  

>  I have seen more professional
> disinformation regarding these "other planes" then for
> any other cover up effort of the crime.  

So we must accept that Brian Quig  knows "professional disinformation" when he sees it, and that he has seen it in regard to "other planes" (again acting as if I am not talking about the one world-famous plane in the video that is caught in the act of firing a missile into the Pentagon and then following that missile into the target.)

Let's get this straight.  Brian Quig  says he saw "professional disinformation" regarding "these other planes" and therefore we should therefore ignore the Pentagon's own video camera which captures the actual attack plane in the act of firing the missile and crash bombing the building?

Is this rat gutsy or what?  And where do they breed lying rats like this, Harvard Business School?)

> That is because what I have said about the planes being
> the conclusive proof is so conclusive that the spin doctors
> are concentrating on it.

Wait a minute! You say that YOU said the planes are "conclusive proof"? and that it is against YOUR assertion that the planes are "conclusive proof" that "spin doctors" are concentrating on it?

Duh!  I thought I was making the point about the "conclusive proof" of the Pentagon video  and that YOU were the spin doctor attempting to sweep it under the carpet.   How bold of you to point out to everyone that Brian Downing Quig is really the man with the plane proof and that Dick Eastman is the spin doctor.  Very fancy footwork, that, Quig.  Too bad for you I saw it coming.  (I've tangled with dirty fighters before.)

> I suggest you try to study this issue and fully understand it
> before you come back with some defense of some insignificant
> detail.

Gee, fella, thanks for the advice.  I've always wanted to look into the Pentagon stuff, but I do have this problem about concentrating on details, like this spot on my desk that looks like a camel?  Why do you suppose it looks like a camel?  Could it be that its some secret Arab signal telling me that my cover as a "spin doctor" has been discovered and that I  should hightail it back to the base in Iraq?   -- Hey, Webfairly,  this is Achmed "the Dagger" Eastman  -- we've been found out!!!  Grab your veil and meet me at the submarine at 22:20 hours, tonight.

Quig is not just a freeper, trying to get my goat --  rather he is doing two things:  1) discrediting me while establishing himself, without true basis, as a big scientific investigator, and 2) calling the Pentagon video of the actual attack, the only known direct evidence of this kind -- as "some insignificant detail"  -- when in fact it is a fabric of many critical details, all different yet mutually reinforcing (e.g., the nature of the explosion, the smoke plume behind the jet, the small size of the jet  -- which ties in with and corroborates other findings of, for example, the  too small a hole in the Pentagon, the lack of airliner debris, the witnesses who saw a small plane, the discrediting (by Gerard Holmgen) of the witnesses who claimed to have seen a Boeing hit the building, the stand down of the air force, the stand down of intelligence, the long leisurely and roundabout flight taken by the hijacked airliner after radio communication was cut and after the transponder was shut off; and the presence of Israelis at both Dulles (where flight 77 took off) and Reagan National (two miles from the Pentagon, where Flight 77 landed) who had illegal top security passes enabling them to gain access to the tower, baggage, and the hanger where Flight 77 taxied after landing, and the loading docks and busses or trucks used in taking the passengers and crew from the airport.

>And please webfairy hold your comment for me by phone which is better.

And let us not ignore this little side message to Webfairy.  Quig is asking Webfairy not to post her questions and objections to Quig's replies, to this forum, asking instead that discussion be conducted privately over the  telephone  -- just as Ron Harvey and "Isopodia" got Dave Bosankoe writing and phoning out of the public eye and unknown to me, engaging in flattery of his "math page" and so forth, and telling him (which was true)  how much more reasonable and fair minded he is than his loose cannon collaborator in Yakima.  So that after I returned from a two week vacation at Lake Huron,  Bosankoe had removed his website and all of the Pentagon graphics and links  that all of my posts refer to for visual and graphic support in my newsgroup postings  (so that all of those posts of mine discuss the evidence of pictures that now cannot be seen.   BUT ASIDE FROM FLATTERY AND A CHANCE  TO WOO THE OLD GAL INTO BACKING OFF FROM BUSH'S JUGULAR -- QUIG DOES NOT WANT TO BE PUT ON THE SPOT  --  HE KNOWS THE PENTAGON EVIDENCE IS "SMOKING GUN" DEADLY TO THE JUNTA  AND HE KNOWS THAT HE MUST SOMEHOW SPIN IT INTO A DITCH (HIS TWO LETTERS TELL US THAT)   BUT HE ALSO KNOWS THAT EVEN THE BEST LIARS CANNOT COME UP WITH SPIN WHEN THE OPPONENT CAN ASK POINTED QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS STATEMENTS AND EVIDENCE. BEFORE THE PUBLIC (why do you think the Establishment spends hundreds of billions to maintain its clamp on true open discussion in the mass media)  -- THAT IS WHY SO FEW TAKE ME ON IN THIS WILD AND WOOLY MEDIUM  (ALL THAT "INSIGNIFICANT DETAIL" QUIG LOATHES COMES BACK TO ROOST -- YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT DOES)     SO QUIG WANTS TO TALK TO WEBFAIRY ON THE PHONE RATHER THAN OUT FRONT WHERE HIS SLIPS CAN BE CAUGHT AND RUBBED IN HIS FACE.  Finally, a man interested in the truth, wants to communicate on the lists and newsgroups  -- here there is a permanent record, here there is a chance to see what was said and look at it critically and refer back to it and to compare it with new information that presents itself.  When you talk on the phone and get caught in a lie or in a contradiction, you can merely recover by saying  -- "that is not what I said,"  or "that is not what I meant,"  or   "you heard me wrong"  --  this is what I suspect Quig dreads, this also is what I love about this medium  -- and because I am confident that I am a friend of the truth working for the truth  -- I can write as carelessly as I do, never proofreading, etc.

Do you take offense at this, Brian Quig?.  If so, then  let me give you a fighting chance to prove me wrong:

Before the very big jury of public opinion that this letter is reaching,



"Two world wars, shame on them.   A third world war, shame on us."




1) the size of tail fin image in frame #1 requires that for the plane to be a Boeing 757 the front end of fuselage would have to be visible extending out to the left of the stone driveway pillar in the picture.


a) the 757 is over seven times the  length of its own tail fin, i.e., it would take   seven and a quarter tail fins to cover the back   of a Boeing 757, Stegosaurus style, from the tailfin   in the rear  to the nose, but the width of the   image of the driveway pillar that conceals the   attacking plane's entire fuselage is only five   times as wide as the tail fin that appears sticking   up above and behind the pillar (so that regardless   of angle of approach to the Pentagon wall or of   distance of the aircraft from the camera, the plane   simply cannot be aircraft of the length and form   of a Boeing 757; 

b) a 757 is 155 feet long and the Pentagon   is only 71 feet high, but by direct inspection,   if the aircraft behind that pillar was stood on   end against the wall, say half way to the far end   of the wall from the impact point, it would only   stand about 70 percent as high as the wall -- the   method is rough, but the margin of error is   certainly not  218 percent.

2)  the presence of the unmistakable white horizontal missile plume being launched by the plane to weaken the wall in the vicinity of impact so that the jet can easily invade the Pentagon interior without give-away aircraft parts bouncing back on the grass and giving away the frame-up;

3) in frame #2  the tell-tale white-hot initial explosion of the missile warhead is definitely neither a jet fuel kerosene fire, nor the result of aluminum, plastic and flesh crashing into brick, concrete and glass;

4) the blossom of white-hot explosion of the missile warhead spreads laterally, more so than the subsequent jet fuel flames that in frame #3 come from inside the Pentagon, suggesting that the warhead was designed to trigger at the split second of impact rather than after entry through the wall.

All existing cover-up scenarios seeking to explain away this smoking-gun evidence have just been answered.

Yours truly,

Dick Eastman





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: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

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