"Be careful," Jesus said to them. "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Matthew 16:6
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 7:16 PM
Subject: [christianidentity] [CINDS] Dick Yeasthead must make the choice: "race baiting" or EXTINCTION !
> Dick(yeast)head's Proclamation:
> ''Don't you DARE read hengist's response below without
> also reading my reply!"
> And the penalty imposed for non-compliance, IS ... ?
I do believe, hengist, that we have the *PROOF* we need that Dick is a kike:
Sharon whom they want to take
all the heat for 911 (in my view, Sharon is merely one accomplice, who did
save some lives by getting a warning to the building -- but who also
deserves life in prison).
Can you IMAGINE this ARROGANT statement?
CAN YOU STOMACH THIS JEWISH TRIPE!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Don't you just LOVE to hate the dam. jews, hengist!!??
Dick kike yeasthead, if Sharon KNEW ahead of time about 911, then he didn't "save some lives"--HE WAS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR 3,000 MURDERED AMERICANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I JUST CANNOT STAND HOW STUPID AND ARROGANT YOU JEWS ARE!!!!!!!
You "think" that saving 2 jews is worth KILLING 3,000 Americans.
But the worst part of your KIKE STUPIDITY is trying to take the heat off this PROVEN WAR CRIMINAL ARIEL SHARON, whom 151 of 153 nations and 3,000 NGO's at the UN conference in Durban CONDEMNED for his apartheid, racist, terrorist POLICIES.
on 7/4/02 12:42 AM, Mike Schneider at mike1@u... wrote:
> At 5:26 PM -0700 7/3/02, Dick Eastman wrote:
>> Mike, I wish my side had such strong dominant personalities,
>> be who can say "up is down" and everyone nodds his head.
> If you could get those notorious Nazi sympathizers Carol Valentine
> and "X98" to stop huffing paint-thinner and whining about "Zionism"
> every two seconds, you might have one.
You are aware that X98 is calling me a Zionist spook, that Christian
Party" John Knight has called me "Dick the Kike", and hengist calls me
Yeasthead. Also, Valentine, whom I talked to once and is from Brooklyn
(where both my parents come from) has NOT endorssed the Pentagon evidence
which I cannot understand. And others, Mike Rivero and Joe Vialls: one
calls me a double agent, both reject the Pentagon evidence, because, I
suspect, it points to Bush, Cheney, Kissinger, Wolfie and Pearle --
corruption in the DoD and CIA, rather than to Sharon whom they want to take
all the heat for 911 (in my view, Sharon is merely one accomplice, who did
save some lives by getting a warning to the building -- but who also
deserves life in prison).
Mike, etting personal, I think you err on the side of overgeneralizing
people into two sides:
1) can't do anything wrong; and
2) had it coming anyway.
>> But a dominant personality, the ability to herd the sheep,
>> is a great gift that can be abused. It should be used for
>> good, not evil.
>> Wimpy as I am, Mike, I know that I cannot be wrong on
>> every detail every time in every way. You are steel when
>> it comes to imposition of will over weak seekers of the
>> truth -- and in your field doubtless much admired.
>> But from a larger perspective -- what satisfaction can you
>> derive in helping with this cover-up.
> All I'm doing is standard here pointing out the self-evident fact
> that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Your post
> right here on top of this paragraph amply demonstrates this, in that
> you're unable to talk about the evidence of the case, which is an
> incredibly blurry videotape, the URL of which you provided for
> everyone to see, that doesn't show either rockets or F16s firing
> them. That you would insist that such is what is there means, simply,
> that you're insane.
Mike, I have never claimed o show rockets. I have carefully looked
for the actual missile making the plume, but could not find it and
had to conclude that it is hidden by the pillar.
My point, my by-direct inspection observation that you can replicate
simply by taking the trouble to look, and which your above statement
indicates you do not acknowledge despite its in front-of-your-face
obviousness to everyone else is
1) there is a white plume of smoke -- a distinct thick white
trail visible behind the plane on the right -- the source
being behind the pillar, presumabley, by position, under the
plane's wing. (note in the second frame you actually see this
smoke being pulled in by the explosion of rising heat).
2) there is a distinct tail fin, with logo, -- that if you
go back and forth between frame one, where it is there, and
the other three frames -- you see that objects behind the
fin are visible in the other three shots when the fin is gone,
so that the visible fin cannot be misinterpreted as a building
or other structure far in the background -- there is no mistake.
6) about the F-16: it is the plane that is short enough,
it is the plane would most likely be in the vicinity, it
is the plane that carries missiles that would look like
this when firing, it is a plane that could attack by remote
control -- there are (were) 24 F-16's that regullarly flew
by remote as trianing tracking targets in the "Top Gun" program.
BUT MIKE, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AN F-16 -- it could be any
small jet -- the F-16 just happens to fit all of the known
criteria demanded by all the known evidence. Some say it
was another kind of fighter, some say it was one of the cruise
missiles that can also carry and fire a standard missile (
so that the remote control equipment is not lost each time).
So happy Fourth of July, Mike. You're invited over for Kosher
hotdogs and pickles this afternoon. Bring the whole boilerroom.
Or make it next year, if there is one.
P.S. Here is that "use this" article again -- if you
want to double check your previous conclusions:
on 7/3/02 10:37 PM, Helen Chin-Ginsburg at helen_chin@m... wrote:
> It appears that after weeks' worth of rightwing GOP crimes such as
> Enrongate, Worldcomgate, Insider trading at stock exchange, we are suddenly
> beseiged with much 'terrorist' alerts for this holiday weekend. Are they
> bogus? And are they specifically designed to distract the public of above
> mentioned publicity with midterm elections just four months away?
> Since CIA, FBI and NYPD have NOT account for their miserable failure on 9/11
> attacks that led to the deaths of 3000 people, what is to prevent them from
> 'FAILING' again? Why have they NOT been fired? Instead given more billions
> of dollars? And why are they considered 'heroes'? What kind of publicity
> fraud is that? Isn't this the equivalent of hiring the top security company
> to protect your loved ones and home, only to return and find them dead and
> home destroyed? Do you immediately pay them? Sing them high praises? Or make
> sure they never repeat their failure and hurt others again?
Helen you understand them perfectly. Yet you are too charitable when you
merely say they "failed." You know what this bunch have done over the
years. You know what they are capable of. You must know that they
succeeded, not failed, on September 11. When you hire people who are
capable of protecting your family and you come back and find your family
dead and the protection service taking over your checking account to make
sure you provide more of their services -- then you have a pretty good idea
who killed your family.
And we have the evidence:
Here is enough to put away for life most of the top men in the
Decide for yourself whether or not Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,
Pearle, Kissinger and Gingrich are innocent or guilty of mass-murder.
THIS PENTAGON SECURITY CAM VIDEO SEQUENCE
IS "SMOKING-GUN" EVIDENCE, ESTABLISHING THE
SEPTEMBER 11 MASS-MURDERS AS AN "INSIDE-JOB"
(Note the small short jet, the missile plume, the tell-tale
white-hot intitial 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.)
Here is an enlargement of first frame of the above sequence:
(omitted -- see the original post.
Print out the first frame in this sequence (above.) Then
take the straight edge of a piece of paper and place it
over the image of the plane along the line from tail to nose.
Now mark the edge of the paper at the right-most point
point of the aircraft (either the rear tip of the tail fin or the
end edge of the exhaust area under the tail). Then, with
this first point still anchored on this right-most point of the
plane, make a second mark on the edge of the paper
exactly where you estimate the tip of the nose (the radome)
to be. The tail fin is distinct and obvious, but the nose,
usually black or dark gray on a jet fighter, is either obscured
in shadow or else the craft is too short to extend past the
pillar in front of the plane hiding the fuselage -- so select the
furthest leftward limit where the tip might be hidden in shadow.
(I suspect that other frames exist showing the full plane before
it reached the pillar, but that these were not released for the
This gives you the length of the plane marked on the edge of
the paper -- and and we will call that distance unit 1 "apl"
(apparent plane length).
Next, look at the Pentagon and locate the impact point
where you think the plane's nose hit the building (forgetting
that a missile got there first) -- judging from the apparent
source of the explosions in frame two and three. (Pick
different impact points to demonstrate the range of
Now place your 1 apl measure vertically over the impact
point to compare length of the plane image with the height
of Pentgon image at the impact point (i.e., as if you have
cut out the plane, stood it on end, and leaned it up against
the image of the Pentagon at the impact point to compare
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 has to
be about 50 or 45, but never 60 or more units in length.
But impact point 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 crossing plane is to
the right -- This means that any error in the above estimate
due to perspective and distance, errs on the side of representing
the plane as bigger than it is. The image of the plane, 1 apl,
is of an object closer to the camera that was the impact
point on the Pentagon. Thus, if you add the factor of distance
from camera, you must subtract from the former estimate of
the length of the plane, not add. If your above estimate of the
of the plane was 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 nerdcity.com 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 soley
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 too far off to the side, not at all straight
across from where the plane entered the building, but
far to the left. Too far to the left of the A-ring impact point
to be believable -- because between this distant hole
in C-ring and any possible point of initial entry through
the A-ring facade of the building there is a section
of undemolised A-ring offices in the way. The engine
could not have punched through those rooms without
damaging them, nor could it have avoided those offices
by bouncing around the to reach the C-ring hole. Every
bounce must absorb energy, and to go around the undamaged
portions of structure to reach the alleged exit hole would require
at least two bounces. Assuming that the engine was not made
of "flubber" Nerdcity is left with the problem o explaining why
the engine could make a hole in the C-ring after the second
bounce but could not penerate the ring on first impact. The
notion of bouncing engines is absurd. Whatever the explanation
of the famous hole in C-ring it cannot be the exit hole of the
jet engine resulting from the collision. Simple
inspection of shots of the damage from the lawn
and from the air makes this point. (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 thus shown to be totally spurious.
Conclusion: A view of the A-ring entry point and the location of the
C-ring hole shows that the engine could not have made the hole
because a straight line entry to C-ring hole cannot be drawn
without passing through a substantial section of totally undemolished
portions of A-ring offices -- sections of the structure that were not even
cleared away in the cleanup! (See the various satellite views.)
The plane hit the facade at nearly a 90-degree angle as is apparent
from the DoD video sequence. Note that the port side of the plane's
tail fin appears in proper side-view proportion facing the camera.
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 straight-across path of the plane from first frame to
the second exploding impact point also 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 of the priest, that one
pole was "clipped." (see reference sites, below.)
I also read the Holmgen analysis (also referenced below)
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 down well after the accident and
photographed then -- you will notice that in the picture Harvey
does send identifies pole locations but does not show them down,
and they are not shown with the Pentagon wreckage in the background.
Would YOU take a picture of downed poles without "telling the story" by
the Pentagon in the background? Obviously the picture
was taken to tell a story about poles, but not the story of the appearance
of the Pentagon area at the time of the shot that would indicate
when the photos were taken. If I was taking these pictures to confirm
Harvey's theory, I would have gotten a shot of the line of broken poles
leading right to the damage area, because I know that that picture
would resolve the issue. Harvey and the government do not supply
such a picture, and the reason is simple, the trail of downed poles did not
exist on September 11th or even on September 12th.
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
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 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
appraoch, 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 video evidence is not based on our varacity or our mental accuity.http://www.humanunderground.com/11september/pent6.htmlhttp://www.humanunderground.com/11september/pent.html
We have functioned as scientists. We have analysed this
data, and we have told people how the enlargements were made
so they can replicate these results from the same government-provided
data -- and replicability of results is one of the primary criteria of
scientific validity. Yet the Bosankoe sequencing of the frames is
not essentail to making this case. The same case can be made
examining the stills seperately, only some of the results are not
immediatly obvious as with the aligned animation sequencing
of the frames. Bosankoe adds nothing but convenience of frame-to-
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 UnAmerican 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 marytr -- 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
conspriacy 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 lwc@r... is not the guy from nerdcity.
It he is then, between him and Ron Harvey and his lamposts,
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
(wholehartedly endorsed and recommended)
E. O. Fescado:
http://www.bosankoe.btinternet.co.uk Ultimate smoking gun.
http://www.bosankoe.btinternet.co.uk/message.htm Bosankoe statement
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htmhttp://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page.htmhttp://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/treason.htmwww.tenc.net (mirror of emperors-cloths)
Contrary to the CFR-media, witnesses do NOT confirm that a Boeing 757
hit the Pentagon.
French Sites (in English) and Thierry Meyssan
http://thewebfairy.com/whatzit/french.html Ultimate 911 frameup overview.
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed:
"The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11th, 2001"
Other highly recommended:
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/sources.htmlhttp://www.skolnicksreport.com/ Sherman Skolnik
http://www.world-action.co.ukhttp://geocities.com/mknemesis/colonels.htmlhttp://www.Public-Action.com Carol A. Valentine
http://www.truthout.orgwww.tenc.net (mirror of emperors-cloths)