This invitation was sent to over a hundred posters to physics, chemistry, engineering and aviation newsgroups with no thought as to political orientation of the discussant. Let this be the most scientific of the Pentagon-event controversy the public has had yet.

Dick Eastman M.S., M.A.


If you are receiving this you know something about physics or fighter planes -- and you look intelligent in your newsgroup posts to physics or aviation newsgroups. (It would be especially good to hear from those who were writing in the threads on multidimensional gas chromatography and the phoenix missile.)

Here is the evidence that the Pentagon was attacked, not by a crashbombing Boeing 757, but by an F-16 that also fired a missile into the Pentagon before its own collision with the building. This I claim is verifiable by direct inspection of the DOD's own data.

If you dare venture an opinion -- 100+ people have been Bcc'd -- then please post this opinion at either of these sites: uk.politics.parliament, uk.politics.crime, sci.physics, sci.physics.research,nyc.politics (where there has been much surprisingly civil discussion, but little scientific and military aviation light).

Look for the thread:

Subject: Pentagon: Invited expert opinion: Scientific and military aviation writers invited here to evaluate attack event data.

Now, on to the data:

(Don't panic that this was sent to you -- I just surfed googlegroups for smart guys in physics and aviation newsgroups.)

Here is a collection of post excerpts to bring you up to date on data. Comment at the above newsgroups/thread -- it will take a few hours before the hosting thread appears -- not moderated -- pro and con invited -- we realize the topic is a little intense (sorry). -- Dick Eastman M.S., M.A.

David Bosankoe of the U.K. has enlarged a section of the clip of the Pentagon attack event taken by security video camera and released by the Department of Defense (below).

After close examination I am convinced that the clip does supports neither the official story of a Boeing 757 hitting the building, nor the "French "where's the plane?" site story that "no plane at all" was involved in the deadly explosions.

Here are the three shots that convinced me that a small jet was involved. There are two other visuals I would like you to see, referenced below.

Australian observation clinches the presence of the lead-in missile in Pentagon attack

Paul Walker wrote a letter that presented a challenge -- there must be better proof of a missile than just the "squiggly line" of exhaust in the first frame of the Bosankoe evidence (actually it is more than a "squiggly line" -- in the macro it is horizontally oriented and thick and white and located in the right place with respect to the jet's stabilizer -- and in the micro detail it has those billowy convexities indicative of gases just released and in the first second of dissipation -- and it is not consistent with either engine exhaust or contrail condensation) -- but nevertheless more conclusive, decisive, unequivocal, nail-'em evidence is needed. Peter Meyers of Australia in a letter to an Australian editor provides, I think, what Paul Walker has been looking for (see below).

"Paul Walker" <> wrote:


I have been forwarding stories on the French book only because it proves that many people, especially in France honestly question the official story. I too think it was a smaller plane and reject the "no-plane" theory, but from the evidence we have, I don't see how we can conclusively call it an F-16 shooting a missile into the Pentagon. There were several witnesses who reported seeing what they called either a "mid-sized" plane or a "commuter jet". Until there is further evidence besides the photo of the plane's tail and a squiggle of what appears to be white smoke, I think we should keep an open mind and at least agree that it was a smaller plane, not a 757.


Here is Peter Meyer's letter:

Dear Mr McNicoll,

A colleague of mine in Australia faxed to me the paragraph in your column in The Australian of April 5, 2002 (p.11). For the benefit of other readers of this message, which will soon be appearing on my Serendipity website, I quote the first half of your paragraph:

Big bang theory

FURTHER to the conspiracy theory -- that no aircraft hit the Pentagon last September -- which is being expounded by French author Thierry Meyssan in his book 'The Frightening Fraud'. Should you wish to see some of the pictures of the Pentagon attack which have a large number of French citizens no longer believing the official US government story, you can access them online. ...

by the more direct URL:

It should be noted that this site does not say that no aircraft hit the Pentagon. It could be taken to suggest that the damage was caused by a truck bomb, but a careful inspection will reveal that the site suggests only that the damage was NOT caused by a Boeing 757.

The thesis by the French author is either mistaken, or it is another instance of what Carol Valentine has called "the fake opposition"

As one commentator, Dick Eastman, puts it:

The French "no-plane" thesis is disinformation -- it is the sending in of a buffoon to refute a clown. It's an old trick -- if the "official" version is absurd and readily dismissed by simple direct inspection of physical evidence -- then the deception can only be defended by "puffing" a counter explanation that is even more absurd.

Or in other words, an alternative explanation is presented which purports to deny the truth of the official story, but the alternative is either grossly implausible or is easily refuted by reference to the evidence. The discrediting of the alternative is then used to support the official version.

The problem with Meyssan's thesis is that a plane actually did hit the Pentagon -- but it wasn't a Boeing 757. As Dick Eastman has pointed out, what actually happened is that a (probably remotely controlled) F-16 fighter jet flew into the Pentagon, hitting it a moment after it released a missile. You can see this in the images released by the Pentagon --

Frame 1: The outline of a fighter jet, probably an F-16, is visible toward the right of the picture.

A larger version of this frame can be viewed at

Frame 2: A huge, white-hot, fireball erupts. Such an intensely hot fireball would not result from the ignition of jet fuel but would result from the detonation of a missile carrying a high-explosive warhead.

Frames 3, 4 and 5: Here you see the red fireball resulting from the impact of the jet.

The damage to the Pentagon is not consistent with an impact by a 757 Boeing jetliner but is consistent with the explosion of a missile plus the impact of an F-16 jet.

So if it was an F-16 jet which hit the Pentagon, what happened to AA Flight 77, the Boeing jet which, according to the official story, hit the Pentagon? And what happened to the passengers on board this jet?

The answer has been given by an informant of Carol Valentine (see, from which we may construct the following account (in part) of what happened on September 11th:

1. Some time after Flight 77 takes off its pilots are informed that the U.S. is under attack and that they are to shut down their transponder and land their plane at the nearest military base (directions to the base are given). The pilots obey this order.

2. The Twin Towers are hit by planes (but not AA Flight 11 or UA Flight 175, which are also diverted to the same military base) and shortly after are brought down in a controlled demolition by means as yet undetermined, but possibly by explosives within the buildings.

3. An F-16, probably remotely controlled, approaches the Pentagon at ground level, fires a missile, and a split-second later crashes into the building.

4. The official (pre-written) story of a simultaneous hijacking of four Boeing passenger jets by Arab terrorists acting under orders from Osama bin Laden is released to the U.S. mainstream media and promoted non-stop by the media whores.

5. The passengers from AA Flight 77, AA Flight 11 and UA Flight 175 are herded onto UA Flight 175, which (as with the other three flights) has been ordered to land at the same military base.

6. UA Flight 175 takes off from the military base and flies toward Washington. It is shot down by a U.S. Air Force fighter jet over Pennsylvania. All passengers and crew from all four "hijacked" planes (other than those who are part of the operation) are killed.

Thus those who planned and carried out the September 11th attacks not only caused the deaths of about 3,000 people in the Twin Towers and a few hundred military personnel at the Pentagon, but also deliberately murdered about 200 people who were on board the four Boeing jetliners to eliminate witnesses to their "high crimes".

We may reasonably guess at who they are (George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld come to mind). If the identities of the perpetrators are ever established they know they will go before a firing squad.

Therefore we can be sure that (unless they are removed from their present positions of influence) they will do whatever they deem necessary to escape detection, even if this means causing the deaths of yet more thousands of American citizens in "terrorist" attacks.

Peter Meyer


View this:

Then these two:

Scroll down to the 47th picture which is labeled pentani.ipg and to the 51st picture labeled pentvid1

I recommend these 11 September frame-up criminal investigation sites: Michael C. Ruppert (mirror of above) Sherman H. Skolnick Jeff Rense

Scientifically Pulling Apart the Pentagon
Information sent via e-mail from Dick Eastman on 8 April 2002

Back to The Pentagon Menu for Item 7, "Did a Boeing Hit the Pentagon"

Phase 1 “Know” Menu
Looking for Justice in All the Wrong Places Menu
Insights-Reflections-Analysis Menu
Covering Up the Cover Up Menu
The Reality of Israeli Zionist Infiltration Menu
Are We On the Path of Expanding Liberty or Tyranny?
Declaring Independence and A State of Global Rebellion Menu
A Picture of the Stars and A Voice from the Ethers Menu
Interim Addendums During Phase 1