Sunday, February 3, 2008

EASTMAN AND THE DECOY THEORY

LAGASSE AND EASTMAN PART 1: EASTMAN AND THE DECOY THEORY
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
January 12 2008
Last update 2/25/08


Update 2/13: I’ve made numerous edits for flow, tightened of parts that rambled, improved grammar and spelling to compensate for limited English proficiency of Lagasse, Eastmann, Desmoulins, and myself.

Intro: The North Path Star Witness
The purpose of this ambitious three-part series is to explore the roots of Sergeant William Lagasse, a Pentagon Force Protection Service dog handler, as a witness to the Pentagon attack. For those who don’t know, Lagasse is arguably the star witness of the flyover-theory-promoting video The PentaCon, produced by Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) and released early 2007. Lagasse is the most convincing of their four witnesses of the north-of-the-Citgo flight path that proves, no matter what Lagasse himself says, that the silver 757 he saw must have flown over the building instead of into it. Among their growing cast of witnesses, the good Sergeant is also the longest-running and in many ways most perplexing player of the north-path tragicomedy. He was brought to their attention, if not directly funneled to them, by controversial 9/11 researcher Dick Eastman. It was Eastman who discovered the officer in 2003 and publicized his north-of-the-Citgo account. This is a curious episode worth looking at in some detail and in context, which is where this story will begin.

The Only Way?
Yakima, Washington-based e-mail warrior and 9/11 researcher Richard “Dick” Eastman is trained in economics, and is apparently a religious man; an acquaintance has described him as a "fool in Christ" and notes his “high cost of Christian discipleship standards.” [link] Adopting a fiercely populist, libertarian, anti-N.W.O. stance, he seems excitable and is said to have gotten rather belligerent and confrontational with fellow 9/11 researchers, quickly dismissing them as complicit in the cover-up if they happen to disagree with him. Eastman is well-known to be staunchly ‘anti-Zionist,’ and sometimes accused of anti-Semitism; he’s wondered aloud, as many have, if 9/11 were a Mossad operation, but for the woes of the world he doesn’t blame all Jews, just the ‘86%’ who support Zionism [source]

I suspect there’s at least some truth to some of Eastman's broader concerns, or the ones he appeals to, and I appreciate his emphasis on grassroots, de-centralized action to fundamentally alter the way things work. But then I disagree strongly again with his ideas on waking up the masses; in a supposed farewell letter issued early 2004, he summed up 9/11 in context of his world view. What was needed was to:

“...discredit the entire ruling elite in government, big business, big finance, big law, big media, big organized crime, big defense - and there is only one way to do that to the degree necessary, only one way to discredit the entire structure so as to bring it down by instant popular demand - and that way is to expose the truth about the 9-11 black-op false-flag inside-job mass-murder frame-up - and the only way to expose the frame-up is with the evidence that shows beyond all possibility of doubt that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing airliner.” [emphases mine]

By this definition we’re all screwed. Luckily I also feel his assessment of our global options was wrong and there’s still hope even though an airliner did crash itself into the Pentagon. Either way, he feels his no-757 case was a serious boon to the cause of Truth and global justice – if not its only salvation.

In early 2003 evidence was more scant than it is now, and mystery flourished with Meyssan and others insisting on a missile or small drone strike. Amid the gathering din, one research piece by Eastman rose above for its ambition (three parts!) and apparent sophistication of info-mulching: What convinced me that Flight 77 was not the Killer Jet, published by the equally concerned American Patriot Friends Network. As with other no-757 impact theories, Eastman’s analysis rests heavily on the physical evidence that ‘disproves’ a 757 impact; he found the entry hole "too small to accommodate a Boeing 757 [with] a width of no more than 10 feet.” (90 feet wide in reality) He marveled at the unmarked lawn, and decided the debris evidence available at the time was ‘portable’ and so probably planted.

He also found that the famous security camera stills showed a blackish missile hidden from view but trailed by white missile exhaust (based on a common mix of errors I’ve explained here). But the key problem with the missile theories then purporting to explain these same misread ‘oddities’ was the widespread awareness of dozens of eyewitness reports of a 757 flying in that way and even impacting. Eastman was among the first to find a way to (apparently) acknowledge this class of evidence with bizarre treatment that still allowed a non-impact scenario, and the Flyover theory was born.

The Killer Jet, the Light Poles, and the Decoy
In essence his theory, at least as it stood at that point, is this: the decoy he insists on calling Flight 77, a large two-engine silver airliner painted with American Airlines standards as seen by many, flew in from the west, while a drone ‘killer jet’ came in synched, below it and from a similar angle, fired a missile, and then itself impacted the Pentagon as Flight 77 passed over and disappeared. Eastman offered “a profile of the remote-controlled killer jet,” in essence a "‘non-standard’ General Dynamics F-16 aircraft.” There were no eyewitness reports of an F-16, just one ear-witness (whom Eastman doesn’t even cite) who thought the jet sounded like one. An F-16 has a single engine centered in the rear compared to the two massive RB-211 engines under a 757’s wings. “Only one engine broke through the C-ring,” Eastman states based on something or other (actually neither engine seems to have made it that far); “The one engine is on a line from the downed lamp posts to the entry hole to the last exit hole -- indicating a single engine jet.” A Boeing as said to have done all damage and widely reported as impacting low is three times as long as an F-16 and at least thrice as massive, and thus seems a better match for the damage necessary to reach the exit hole. But if the entry hole were only ten feet across, no Boeing could have entered, so F-16 it must be.

Also take note that the five downed light poles match a 757’s wingspan of 124 feet, and know that an F-16’s wingspan is 33 feet. The accused killer doesn’t seem a candidate to take down the poles, and at first Eastman denied any were downed; “Ron Harvey says that 5 poles were downed. Ever hear that from any other source? […]I have not seen a picture of five downed poles. If there is one I would like to ask whether it was faked […] you will notice that in the picture Harvey does send that the downed poles are not shown with the Pentagon wreckage in the background. ” [link]Later he clarified “I have long acknowledged the existence of the poles as soon as I finally got my hands on an actual picture of one (Ron Harvey was not forthcoming with me at the time)" [link]

“In fact it was the pole data in contrast to the witness accounts.” Eastman continued, “that first suggested the presence of two converging aircraft paths.” In this construct, the impact/pole damage path still is attributed to the killer F-16 by the time of his 2003 piece, which explains “the light poles […were] hit by wind force concentrated in a vortex coming off the wings, rather than being hit by the aircrafts fuselage or wings, denting and fallen forward.” Yes, he thought (or said he did) that air was responsible for bending, cutting, and crimping these aluminum poles so acutely.
So his conclusion, based in part on the light poles, was of two converging flight paths, with the implausible F-16 doing the damage “while Flight 77 […] in fact flew over the building, concealed immediately from most witnesses by fire and smoke rising to the rear and by the "blend-in" environment of Reagan National [Airport],” where it ten landed. With that airstrip just a couple thousand feet behind the Pentagon, the incredibly tight loop required to reach it, according to French researcher Jean-Pierre Desmoulins, “shows how imagination can bring somebody who doesn't know physics and laws of flight to propose nonsense.” [link]

Riskus Dyslexia and the ‘South’ Path
Attack witness and skateboarding enthusiast Steve Riskus, according to his own account, was “traveling on route 27 towards 395,” which means he was headed south with the Pentagon to his left, when the airliner “crossed my path from the right,” or west, “about 100ft in front of me and crashed into the pentagon.” Within seconds he was out of his car and taking photos of the scene, revealing his excellent view. “I could see the "American Airlines" logo on the tail as it headed towards the building,“ his seminal account clarifies, and Eastman is quite sure Riskus saw the Boeing decoy, but he also clearly states “I saw the plane hit the building,” even though it was the killer jet that did that. “From where Riskus was, the low and level approach of the killer jet was camouflaged by the "busy" background,” Eastman concluded, so he simply presumed the flyover jet is what caused the explosion. That’s it. The core assertion of this account is disposed of quickly, the remainder free to pilfer.

Riskus’ scene photos reveal his approximate location, across from the heliport tower just north of the impact point. The graphic at left is from the text-graphic Dick Eastman used to convey his position, which looks about right except one thing – at the bottom in red are labels southwest and northwest of crash, which do not line up with his description or the evidence. The poles were south of the impact, not north, and if Riskus were south, the Pentagon would be to his right, not left. Eastman clarifies that he thinks “Witness Steve Riskus was headed north on the turnpike, south of the crash site, when he saw Flight 77 pass by.” Just imagine for a moment this guy’s compass: east is to the left of north? He has the whole area half-backwards, and it carries through into his analysis of the killer jet’s “straight northwest to southeast line” taking out the light poles “north” of Riskus, “to that final hole where the bare engine of the plane exited.”

Eastman caught the error eventually (see part II), and it does not really effect his overall findings, anyway; if we re-orient his N-S axis while keeping the E-W, the decoy would fly north of the killer jet’s path, given Riskus’ standing 100-foot measurement. This roughly gives us a flight path very north of the Citgo, over the middle of Arlington National Cemetery. This is in no way a candidate for the light pole or building damage, and would have had to have flown over. If not for the dyslexia that has him reading north as south, this is the best evidence yet for a north path and flyover, an issue that will clarify itself and come into play in the next installment. By my measurements, the official 77 path/Killer Jet path would have crossed Route 27 roughly 1,000 feet ahead of Riskus, which leaves me wondering if 100 was a typo, a grossly imprecise estimate, or whatever Eastman took it for when he noted "there is no feasible path by which the killer jet could have hit those lamp posts, flown to within 100 feet of Riskus and then returned to the northwest to be able to enter at the crash point at an angle that would enable it to rendevous with the exit hole in the C-ring. No jet could do it, and especially no Boeing 757 airliner could do it." When J.P. Desmoulins looked at Riskus’ account he found that Eastman “developed this "100 ft" statement, making it one of the bases of his theory," while it seemed more likely that this number was "just an irrelevant statement" on Riskus' part, a casual and far-off estimate of an unprecedented sight.

Dividing One Plane Into Two
At one point Eastman confidently summarizes “all evidence and witness testimony presented in this paper are consistent with the [killer jet] thesis.” It’s in the use of eyewitnesses that the piece shines. It seems it was no simple task to see the patterns, and some careful prep work had to go into the process. To make 77 appear the over-passing decoy, he set about Minimizing impact accounts associated with it, as we’ve seen he dismissed Riskus as visually fooled but took a different tack with Tim Timmerman, following his cited account, which was clearly describing Flight 77, with the comment: “most significantly, he actually states that the plane he was watching "didn't appear to crash into the building"!!!!” [bold mine]. Really he said “it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. […] it was right before impact, and I saw the airplane just disintegrate and blow up into a huge ball of flames.” Sounds like an account he shouldn’t have cited – a ground impact and then into the building is about the opposite of a flyover Eastman feels happened, which would make this witness a liar, which would leave one wondering why he’s quoting liars. In fact, Eastman once called Timmerman and Penny Elgas “two witnesses that I believe have lied about their experience.” [source]

In all Eastman analyzes sixteen witness accounts of the plane(s), not all verified by me as free of the selectivity shown with Timmerman’s, and divides all but three of them into “two distinct groups, each seeing a different plane, on a different path, at different altitude, with different sound, at different speeds.” Some saw “an airliner, shiny, red and blue markings, with two engines, in a dive, and flying "low" in terms of one or two hundred feet, and silent (engines idle)” Others saw “a plane that came in at tree-top level, at "20 feet" all the way, hitting lamp posts in perfect low level flight […] engines roaring; pouring on speed; smaller than a mid-sized airliner.”

If we combine the two descriptions we get a composite of the one plane official story. Conversely, by fragmenting the descriptors and creating two piles he creates two jets. Here is the roster: Timmerman, Campo, Munsey, Peterson, Riskus, Robbins, and one anonymous witness saw both the decoy Flight 77 and the impact of same, but either the part where they saw it hit was removed and ignored, or they were tricked. (Robbins “saw the Boeing that did not crash and the explosion and smoke made by the killer plane that did.”). O’Keefe saw the decoy Flight 77 and heard the killer. Vaughn saw the decoy but no impact. The account Eastman shares has Joel Sucherman seeing a “large plane” that was “not going to make it across the river to National Airport” as it passed too fast for him to see “any of the horror- struck faces inside.” Yep, Sucherman saw the F-16, since it “was 20 feet off the ground” and he actually re-prints “the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon.” Gaskins gives nothing Eastman uses besides altitude clues (making it 77 he saw), while Liebner’s is inconclusive for lack of altitude clues. One anonymous “falls between the two categories,” using adjectives that could describe either decoy of F-16.

That’s 14 of the 16, and the final two comprise Eastman’s third category, seeing both planes; He reports that Kelly Knowles saw “two planes moving toward the Pentagon, one veering away as the other crashed.” Actually she was miles away, and saw only the tail of one plane pass and then another also disappeared to the east “a few seconds later.” This is almost certainly the C-130 cargo transport sent to examine the scene, passing over the Pentagon about two minutes after the crash. [source] Keith Wheelhouse was at Arlington National Cemetery when, as Eastman states, he "saw another plane flying near the jet that crashed." As widely reported, one article from three days after 9/11 implied they passed at the same time; “[Wheelhouse] believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar, while at the same time guiding the jet toward the Pentagon.” While another article published the next day clarifies that Wheelhouse says the second plane was probably a C-130 [source, Eastman decided he saw the killer jet and the decoy.

Even as he dropped the known ID to bolster his two-plane theory, Eastman was aware of the C-130, and mentioned it once in the paper. He noted the cargo plane could have aerially planted the 757 debris indicating impact, especially the “wheel in the parking lot," as it passed "just 30 seconds later.” It is never mentioned in connection with two-planes accounts despite at least one that was quite clear on being a C-130 witness. Therefore, this graphic pretty well sums up how the killer jet theory works: [r-click, new window for full-size]

A Killer Theory… NOT
Here we have a proposition that Eastman calls “the only way” to “discredit the entire ruling elite […] to the degree necessary.” And this way, this bridge to victory offered up to support the weight of the world, is strewn with wrecked logic and supported by a teetering tower of poorly piled debris. As I have shown, the Killer Jet Theory is a laughable construct slapped together from misquoted quotes, vague words turned to hard geometry, and that geometry to ‘proof’ of something trumping hard, consistent facts. Its architecture is almost entirely of ‘errors’ too egregious to be accidental or to even be mistaken for such. Perhaps each one is a little tip-off to those paying attention that this theorizing isn’t meant to be taken seriously, a wink as he fleeces the less vigilant. A series of winks. A prolonged seizure of the eyelid.

But there are only so many so dumb, and Eastman must have been left a bit embarrassed by his own piece. The bridge was too rickety. Rescue, however, was just a few e-mails away. Already hinting at a decoy north path (if called a south path at the time) based on nearly nothing, out of nowhere a self-appointed debunker gives the only solid, clear, undeniable north path account yet – Enter William Lagasse and the next post in the series.

9 comments:

Craig said...

>>>>>Lagasse is the most convinced of their four witnesses of the north-of-the-Citgo flight path that proves....


This statement is a perfect example of how you typically and quite deliberately lie to mold the mind of the reader.

All of the witnesses are 100% sure the plane was on the north side.

It's impossible to more sure than 100% sure.

You are manipulating the reader to think that the other witnesses are less sure than Lagasse when nothing could be farther from the truth.

After setting up this deception you will no doubt continue to use Lagasse as a straw man to cast doubt while ignoring all of the other witnesses including Boger and Stephens.

It's typical, it's predictable, and it's downright deceptive.

Why are you so desperately trying to cloud the truth Adam Larson?

Why does real evidence frighten you so much that you have to resort to such blatantly deceptive spin?

Caustic Logic said...

First of all Craig using Aldo phrases, good to have new comments again. Along with Snowygrouch's at my post about him, this is the first of the new year, and two in a day.

>>>>>Lagasse is the most convinced of their four witnesses of the north-of-the-Citgo flight path that proves....


This statement is a perfect example of how you typically and quite deliberately lie to mold the mind of the reader.
[...]
All of the witnesses are 100% sure the plane was on the north side.


Ahem...
First, why does it matter if he's the most certain or not? Is there something wrong with Lagasse happening to be so convinced and thorough?
Second maybe it's not 100% bet my life on it true, but certainly not a lie. Let's put it this way - you guys made the biggest deal of his certainty.

Paik: No clue of course
Turcios: sure of where he put it - no number given but little room for doubt true enuff
Brooks: entirely to the left of the station, clearly draws his picture, no certainty number given but as sure as anything. Laughs with Lagasse when asked how sure they were it was north not south. "I know what I've seen with my own eyes. I know I was here, and I don't have to go around saying I was here."
Boger: pretty darn clear as well unless he's suffering from compound visual dyslexia
Stephens: Also pretty sure even tho he seems to me in a bad spot to see the Citgo at all. Seen or deduced?

Lagasse: More time spent - more details given - almost over-explained. Elaborate reference point talk (stone fence, etc...) Certainty of north path: "100% Bet my life on it." "Fact is, American Airlines plane went from here into the building. I mean... that's it." "I have no reason to lie" "you can't say more than 100% There's no way it was anywhere other than where I said it was." Possibly south? "Zero chance. Is there less than zero percent?"

He's the only one who tries to explain why other witnesses are mistaken. He's the only one who's 'spent a little bit of time on those websites.' He's the only one who gets a slo-mo replay of his certainty.

And the latest exclusivity: he's the only one who gets this own three-part write-up here (the other parts are coming). And suddenly I gotta be branded a liar/manipulator, quick.

I look forward to the response at your 'discussion forum.'

Craig said...

You have been exposed Larson. You are a liar and your wishy-washy fake truther approach is no longer effective. Nobody trusts you at LCF and you are too much of a coward to even bother posting at ATS anymore. This "ambitious 3-part serious" is a desperate attempt to preempt our new presentation but it will fall completely flat because as usual I am simply exposing you for the liar that you are and the information we are presenting is bullet proof.

Arabesque did the same thing in his deceptive "review". Ignore all the other witnesses as if they don't even exist and hyper-focus in on the white male while simply implying that the minorities get debunked by default. Lagasse was the most talkative so his interview was the longest and you have more info to desperately spin. But they are all 100% certain about the north side and Robert Turcios most certainly DID put that number to it you liar. Corroboration is a bitch isn't it? Plus Robert is just as certain of the PULL UP which further proves the flyover.

Our new presentation is going to bury you in facts and additional evidence proving a deception.

I have no doubt you will eventually be forced to slink away forever in a flurry of personal attacks exactly like Pickering and Farmer. Your "santacon" idiocy proved you are already fast headed in that direction.

Spin away coward.

You are irrelevant and your usefulness has ran its course.

Caustic Logic said...

"You have been exposed Larson. You are a liar [...] they are all 100% certain about the north side and Robert Turcios most certainly DID put that number to it you liar."
You got me on something I missed then. Is that the best you can come up with?

"Arabesque did the same thing in his deceptive "review". Ignore all the other witnesses as if they don't even exist and hyper-focus in on the white male while simply implying that the minorities get debunked by default."
That's the stupidest accusation I've ever seen. Was it Arabesque's black hood that gave away his and my racism? Cause you know those guys wear white hoods. I'm not the one who selectted Lagasse to lead the parade and tacked on some minorities to make a multi-ethnic research team less suspicious. Anyway...

"Spin away coward.

You are irrelevant and your usefulness has ran its course."

Niiiiice psyche out. My usefulness will have run its course when NO ONE believes you guys and your tripe anymore. Are you saying that day is here or passed?

Craig said...

When did I accuse you of being racist? Freud called that "projection".

I simply stated a FACT which is that you ARE focusing in on the white male witness and ignoring the rest. Arabesque did the same thing. It is a STRAW MAN. It's a desperate and deceptive attempt. You are attempting to paint a picture that Lagasse is a disinfo agent while ignoring the fact that you are also forced to call Brooks, Turcios, Paik, Stephens, and Boger agents in this conspiracy theory of yours.

It's totally transparent. People see through your blatant manipulations and they aren't buying. Not even your 757 impact buddies will sign on to your ridiculous deep cover disinfo agent theory because it completely contradicts all logic and reason.

You have nothing but wild conjecture against what we present and people already see you for the joke that you are.

Your are merely swinging wild blind punches into the air while the cold hard facts and evidence we present only keeps growing. Truth and evidence is on our side. You won't even deal with us direct anymore and are forced to confine yourself to your protected little author approved comment blog that probably gets about 10 hits on a good day.

Well guess what cupcake? There is no longer a public sanctuary for you to spew your crap against us unchallenged.

See you in the new LC forums coward.

Caustic Logic said...

"When did I accuse you of being racist? Freud called that "projection". "

Oh, that's damn clever. So first you were just making random, irrelevant, race-related observations, and NOW you're accusing me of being a racist for having 'projected' that onto what you were saying.

So people aren't buying me, I'm transparent, desperate, a coward, outcast, wishy-washy and blind in my punches a laughingstock, etc. But only you guys care enough to let me know this, 'cause you just care so much.

"You won't even deal with us direct anymore and are forced to confine yourself to your protected little author approved comment blog that probably gets about 10 hits on a good day."

I see no need trying to communicate with you guys. Your true nature is plain enough to see. There's really probably no point in ripping your shit apart either. I mean, out of all people intetrested in 9/11 Truth, how many are into your scene really? How many of those could ever be convinced otherwise? How many of those haven't already abandoned the flyover thing? That's a small pool. But somehow I enjoy it and imagine you guys are relevant enough that I'm relevant.

But I'm not, a joke with no readers, etc... so nothing to lose just shutting the fuck up. Thanks for reminding me I've got an author approved comments section. No more comments for you guys on this post anyway, and no more time wasted responding to your silly and predictable attacks. You can keep from wasting your time and mine, and I get to work on part 2.

"See you in the new LC forums coward."

I've ignored your personal forum mostly out of spite and to save time, ATS to save time and not aggravate the community, and LCF I just win so easy that it's just a fun aside. Forums in general are mostly a waste of time. But if you're ever allowed somewhere again and feel up to challenging me, great. If they'll let you in it'll be nice to have more of a challenge again. Keep calling me coward all you want, liar.

Caustic Logic said...

BTW to clarify I meant so YOU've got nothing to lose shutting the fuck up, since no one reads this or believes me anyway. Right?

Arabesque said...

it amazes me you allow some of these garbage ad hominem attacks on your excellent site.

There are places where stuff like that belongs (like CIT's forum, and formerly ATS!).

But of course, we know that these attacks are all a diversion to disguise the fact that the flyover theory has no credible evidence to support it. Not surprisingly, no one believes this or the ridiculously overwrought rhetoric/conspiracy propaganda either.

Caustic Logic said...

Is there a logical fallacy called 'argument by beligerence?'

Cheers.