Dick Eastman
Pentagon Debris Pic: - it's the planted "photo opportunity"
Tue Sep 17 20:22:56 2002
208.152.73.74

Marc Faram of Navy Times responds to Pentagon attack inquiry:
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 14:24:12 -0700
From: "Dick Eastman" eastman@bentonrea.com

Here is Mark Faram's response to questions about the photo of
Pentagon debris.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Faram" mfaram@earthlink.net
To: "Dick Eastman" eastman@bentonrea.com

Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:58 AM
Subject: Pentagon Debris Pic: - it's the planted "photo opportunity", not
the photography


> Dear Mr. Eastman,
>
> I hate to disappoint anyone, but here is the story behind the
> photograph. At the time, I was a senior writer with Navy Times
> newspaper. It is an independent weekly that is owned by the Gannett
> Corporation (same owners as USA Today).
>
> I was at the Navy Annex, up the hill from the Pentagon when I heard the
> explosion. I always keep a digital camera in my backpack briefcase just
> as a matter of habit. When the explosion happened I ran down the hill
> to the site and arrived there approximately 10 minutes after the
> explosion. I saw the piece, that was near the heliport pad and had to
> work around to get a shot if it with the building in the background.
> Because the situation was still fluid, I was able to get in close and
> make that image within fifteen minutes of the explosion because
> security had yet to shut off the area. I photographed it twice, with
> the newly arrived fire trucks pouring water into the building in the
> background.
>
> The collapse of the building above area happened long after I left the
> scene. I was not even aware that that had happened until that evening
> when I watched the news. My photos were on the wire by noon.
>
> That was the only piece of wreckage of any SIZE that I saw, but was by
> no means the ONLY piece. Right after photographing that piece of
> wreckage, I also photographed a triage area where medical personnel
> were tending to a seriously burned man. A priest knelt in the middle of
> the area and started to pray. I took that image and left immediately.
>
> As I stepped onto the highway next to the triage area, I knelt down to
> tie my shoe and all over the highway were small pieces of aircraft
> skin, none bigger than a half-dollar. Anyone familiar with aircraft has
> seen the greenish primer paint that covers many interior metal surfaces
> - that is what these shards were covered with.
>
> I was out of the immediate area photographing other things within 20
> minutes of the crash.
>
> In short, I was there so quickly after the explosion that there was not
> time for anyone to "plant" this piece of wreckage and it would have
> been impossible for anyone to plant the thousands of shards on the
> highway without being noticed by myself or others.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mark D. Faram
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 06:07 AM, Dick Eastman wrote:
>
> > Dear Mark Faram,
> >
> > Sarah Roberts invited people on the frameup yahoo e-list
> > to e-mail you regarding your famous photo of Pentagon
> > aircraft debris that you photographed.
> >
> > Will you please confirm that there were not many pieces
> > like this on the ground -- and none at all that could not
> > have been carried to postions on the lawn during the
> > twenty minutes when Rumsfeld was keeping rescue
> > workers out of the area and before the upper floors
> > above the crashbombing site collapsed?
> >
> > Also, have you anything to add to the analysis of
> > the Pentagon security video camera frames, below?
> >
> > Yours truly,
> >
> > Dick Eastman
> > e-list discussant
> > Yakima, Washington
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Reply to Sarah Robert's post:
> >
> > it's the planted "photo opportunity" , not the photography
> >
> > the piece is small and portable -- no pictures were taken
> > during the time rescue workers were being held back
> > by Mr. Rumsfeld, the time, presumably, when the small
> > piece was walked out in the confusion and dropped
> > in the grass for Faram, Mannacio, Burgess, and McIntyre
> > to photograph.
------

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


THIS PENTAGON SECURITY CAM VIDEO SEQUENCE
IS "SMOKING-GUN" EVIDENCE, ESTABLISHING THE
SEPTEMBER 11 MASS-MURDER AS AN "INSIDE-JOB,"
A FRAMEUP CONSPIRACY PLANNED TO INVOLVE THE
U.S. IN A WAR FOR CONTROL OF OIL AND FOR THE
CONTINUATION OF NORTHERN ALLIANCE OPIUM
SHIPMENTS TO CHINA TO BOOST WORLD HEROIN
PRODUCTION AND INCREASE DRUG REVENUES THAT ARE
LAUNDERED INTO THE BIG NEW YORK INVESTMENT
BANKS.

See the attack video evidence here:

animated sequencing
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm

frame-by-frame sequencing
http://www.msnbc.com/news/720851.asp?cp1=1

stills
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_plane.htm

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

check: 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, Stegasaurus 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 you stood the aircraft behind the pillar on
end against the wall, say half way to the far end
of the wall from the impact point, it would reach
no more than 70 percent of the wall's height, the
method is rough, but the margin of error in your
estimate can be nowhere near the 218 percent
difference that would be needed to turn that
attack jet into Flight 77.


2) the presence of the unmistakable white horizonal
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 frameup;

3) in frame #2 the tell-tale white-hot intitial 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 coverup scenarios seeking to explain
away this smoking-gun evidence have just been
answered.

Yours truly,

Dick Eastman
223 S. 64th Ave.
Yakima, Washington

Every man is responsible to every other man

• Concerning the Pentagon. — reindf, Tue Sep 17 21:50