- Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search


Dick Eastman

Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0

From: Dick Eastman
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 10:40 PM
Subject: Dick Eastman: Extremelyh Important: I know what happened to the Air France AirBus
According to Air France CEO Pierre-Henry Gourgeon the Air France AirBus flying from Rio to Paris transmitted "a succession of a dozen technical messages" indicated that  "several electrical systems had broken down'' which caused a "totally unprecedented situation in the plane.''
Gourgeon is wrong. The events that resulted in the death of 128 people over the Atlantic were precedented. There have been several similar events.
Reuters has reported that AirBus is claiming that the Airbus A330 has a good safety record, with no fatal accidents on a commercial flight.  This is a falsehood that Reuters did not bother to correct.
In Miami in 1999 pilot and co-pilot of an American Airlines Airbus A300 about to land suddenly lost control of the plane to an exogenous agency.  The rudder moved several times on its own.  "The rudder movements were extreme" said the NTSP.
On Novemeber 12, 2001 American Airlines flight 587, an Airbus A300, lost control to a remote agency resulting in the rudder suddenly swinging back and forth violently, beyond the normal range that can be effected from the cockpit.  The flight data showed "unusual sideways movements that slammed passengers back and forth," repeated banging which caused tremendous strain of the vertical stabilizer until it broke off, despite the strengh of the lamination construction.  The passengers were slamed back and forth prior to the crash in Queens, New York.  But that was not all.  After the rudder was gone the remote controller began playing with other equipment.  With the rudder gone the rudder could still fly, however no the ailerons and elevators (the "flaps") began moving in fatal ways.  At one point was made to turn 10 degrees in just one second, and 180 degree turn in 18 seconds.  The plane banked left, even though data shows pilots were working controls to move in the opposite direction."  The black box contained pilot and co-pilot and tower dialog on this but it was never released.  (Marion Blakey, head of the NTSB, a Bush political appointee with no experience for th job, who was also heading NTSP a month before when the WTC was hit by two planes, the crash in Pennsylvania and the alleged crash of a jetliner at the Pentagon.)  After these turns the remote controller put the plane into a nose dive and cut off the voice recorder, both the plane's regular power and batteries.  The plane was brought to full throttle and then the flaps were brought down, causing the engine pods to rip off their brackets  and keep going as the plane slowed down.  The N.T.S.B. offered only two possible explanations, either "the pilot made the rudder move intentionally or by accident" or the plane was brought down by "butterfly effect" turbulence from a Japan Airlines plane that had taken off ahead of the AirBus.
Now perhaps we can begin to suspect that there was someone on that Air France Flight that the people who benefited from the remote-control crash of the 9-11 planes and the 11/12/01 plane did not like. 
By the way, Dov Zakheim is the man I think is responsible for the 9-11 crashes and one more crash which occured on the early morning of October 31, 1999.  
That Halloween morning EgyptAir 990, a Boeing 767 took off from JFK for Cairo, Egypt.  The plane had aboard 22 top Egyptian military that had just received special training in the United States  -- lured into this trap by the bait of the unusual sharing of military information.  At about 2:00 a.m., from the vocie recorder,  the Egyptian pilot excuses himself to go to the toilet.  The pilot and co-pilot are Egyptian and they speak Arabic.  But suddenly there is heard on the voice recording, in English, the words, "Control it."  Then the plane deviates from course on its own while still on automatic pilot.  The pilot responds to this event with an exclaimatory prayer: "Taw ak kalt ala Allah," roughly equivalent to "Heaven help us!" "May God protect us!" if not "Jesus Christ!"    The co-pilot attempts to disengage autopilot, but the remote controller will not yield.  The co-pilot is in a panic and again praying for help.  The plane, still on auto-pilot goes into a nose dive.  After 16 seconds of remote-controlled hijacking the pilot re-enters the cockpit and asks the co-pilot what is happening.  Both work to pull up and as they are both trying the plane goes full throttle.  The co-pilot cuts the fuel lines.  Then, again under remote control the right and left elevators move in opposite directions.  Ailerons on both wings move full up.  The pilot orders, in Arabic, "shut engines."  The co-pilot replies:  "They're shut!"  The last words heard are those of the pilot calling out, of course still in Arabic,  "Pull!  Pull!"  Then, exactly as happened with Flight 587 over Queens, the voice recorders are remotely shut off -- before the crash event.   The US NTSB reached the conclusion -- against all of this evidence -- that the co-pilot was somehow responsible.
Some passenger in Miami in 1999 needed to be fightened by a demonstration of power.  Someone aboard Flight 587 was a problem for the criminal conspiracy now in control of the US and Israeli governments.  And someone on the Air France flight was equally a threat or target of vengence for the same interests.
You will notice the lame excuses why the Air France black boxes cannnot be recovered.
9-11 was not the work of "Islamic Fundamentalists" who "hate our freedoms" and therefore hijacked four jetliners on September 11 and and crashbombed the WTC towers and the Pentagon.  No one can argue the REAL evidence proving this.   (They can and do of course argue, for example on Fox News, with people who have impossible theories about no planes at all hitting the WTC or absurd tales about energy beam weapons in orbit bringing down the twin towers and Building 7 -- but that is part of the pre-planned disinformation obstruction of justice psy-op the perpetrators are using.
I suspect the target of the crash was French and an opponent of the Sarkozy, the very close supporter of the agendas of both the Bush and Obama presidencies in international financial matters and middle east and war on terror policies.
The victims of this murder were from 32 countries.  61 were French, 58 were Brazilian and 26 were Germans.  No Israelis were aboard or American Jews were aboard.  Sarkozy's French Environment Minister, Jean-Louis Borloo, has declared officially that hijacking has been ruled out.  How in the name of Allah could they possible have done that in the light of the facts I have relayed to you which are certainly known to them?
One more point:  The international killers crashed the Air France plane in part because they were secure in the knowledge that the Sarkozy government, like the Bush government in 2001, would do all that was necessary to keep the truth from being told.  The black boxes will never be produced -- I haven't been following the news for since the day of the crash, but I feel that is a safe prediction.
Please post this, read it aloud over the phone, put it up on your blog.  It is up to them to embarrass and shame the French into investigating this act of mass-murder.
Death by airplane has been the preferred method of eliminating individuals without drawing suspicion to the specific background and connections of an "isolated victim."  We can't let them continue to get away with it.
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.
1.  (Reply)
 ----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 8:27 PM
Subject: [frameup] Fw: Wreckage recovered today from Atlantic doesn't belong to AF447

Lightning is not a problem for any modern jetliner.  The story of 100 mph updraft winds is also not a problem.  As to claims of 100 mph updrafts,  the plane would not suddenly hit the updraft all at once, but it would encounter turbulence.  But was there such an updraft or is this speculation.  Measurement and location of such turbulence is problematical and the investigators are talking as if they are certain, in itself a datum suggesting deception.
Also Brazil will not be conducting its own investigation, only "Sarkozia."  This is outrageous since the plane took off from Rio and the event happened over airspace near Brazil.  Brazil should be very interested  studying leathal anomalous events that can cause jetliner crashes off their own coast.  Clearly Brazil is backing away from its responsibility to assist Sarkozia in its cover-up of this obvious super-crime.  Brazil's Defense Ministry made the decision, although an accident should not be under their perview.  Also, too many people are officials are speaking anonymously about this event.
We really have nothing reliable about what happened to that plane from any official source.  Now we have flotsom that is not from Flight 447 after all.  Was this planted at sea to direct the search and rescue to the wrong spot in the South Atlantic?
Also, the messages sent from the plane could have been false messages.  If flight was taken over, then emergency signals emitted may also have been non-automatic sensing, but rather a succession of false messages to tell a false story. 
Remember, we weigh these possibilites in the light of our knowledge of similar crimes already committed.
Jim Kirwin has sent this:

In Portuguese:


Wreckage from the Atlantic are not the aircraft of Air France, Air Force says

Updated at 19h59.

The FAB (Brazilian Air Force) reported on the evening of Thursday that the wreckage from the Atlantic this Thursday is not the Airbus A-330 of Air France, who disappeared last Sunday (31) with 228 people on board.

According to Brigadier Ramon Borges Cardoso, director of Decea (director of the Department of Control of the airspace), "no material was collected on the aircraft."

"No, no material was collected on the aircraft. What we saw was materials belonging to an aircraft that were left because of the priority of searches for bodies. But so far no piece of the aircraft was recovered," he said.

According to Ramon, the slick of oil was also sighted the aircraft. "A so large quantity found may not have been from the airplane," he said in Recife. According to him, however, the fuel of an airplane is sighted. "The fuel is the more likely it was from the plane. But the oil is discarded."

The brigadier said, however, that the search should continue in the region, and will be reinforced at the end of week with the arrival of new aircraft and boats sent by France.

Today, a piece of 2.5 square meters and two buoys were rescued from waters of the Atlantic, around 13h. According to the Air Force, the object was sighted 550 km away from Fernando de Noronha (PE) by C-130 Hercules aircraft from the FAB. Later, however, the Navy said that the parts do not bring any identification from the Airbus A330 of Air France.

The brigadier denied that the searches have turned to zero. "No. We have made all calculations of the areas. Because taking into account the speed of current, we know exactly where the wreck should be. And this has been confirmed. Because all the planes we launched based on such calculations, in all these local, we sighted wreckage, "he said.

According to him, although the pieces collected today are not the Airbus, the Air Force still maintains the wreckage sighted in the region are the aircraft that the flight was 447.


 2.  (Reply)
----- Original Message -----
From: HP
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 11:44 AM
Subject: Siterun Contact Request

Dear Bellringers,

A recent person you published on your site \"Dick Eastman Yakima, Washington\" with the motto \"Every man is responsible to every other man.\" claimed the following:

"9-11 was not the work of \'Islamic Fundamentalists\' who \'hate our freedoms\' and therefore hijacked four jetliners on September 11 and and crashbombed the WTC towers and the Pentagon.\" which is true.

However, Mr. Eastman than goes on to confusingly \"explain\" that \"No one can argue the REAL evidence proving this.\"

What does that mean? Careful of his terminology. He is priming us to deny the official story while embracing the official conspiracy theory: \" (They can and do of course argue, for example on Fox News, with people who have impossible theories about no planes at all hitting the WTC or absurd tales about energy beam weapons in orbit bringing down the twin towers and Building 7 -- but that is part of the pre-planned disinformation obstruction of justice psy-op the perpetrators are using."

So, people who have shown there was absolutely not substantial evidence to prove an airplane \"crashed" at Shanksville, or who have shown that that there is no evidence whatsoever of an airplane\"crashing\" at the Pentagon and that there is still no evidence of any plane crashes at all in Manhattan but a great deal of evidence for explosives and missiles used in each case ... WE are the "disinformation\" campaign?

I cannot speak for energy beam weapons; that is not my expertise.

However, the allegation that \"no planes\" is an impossible theory or is pre-planned disinformation is not consistent with my findings. I have been watching the \"no planes\" movement evolve from its foundation with artist Nico Haupt, the \"first no planer,\" and that truly is a case where his antics are deliberately made an example of, in order to suggest that all people who have come to the conclusion of no planes are crazy. It is obviously deliberate to depict people seeking 9/11 truth as lunatics.

Most no planers have a very low tolerance for \"antics\" and \"disinformation.\"

In fact, we have the best arguments: the footage has been shown to be doctored to add airplanes. That much can be conceded by anyone studying the infamous \"nose out\" problem or the simple fact that the buildings in the 9/11 broadcast are Virtual Reality and the collapses are physically impossible, not \"possible by planted explosives\" or \"nanothermite\" or any other kind of explosive. The physics displayed in the 9/11 video are high grade military simulation PlayStation-style video game physics.

If there were real planes/buildings shown in the so-called \"amateur\" videos (which have so far all been traced back to video animation companies such as Israel\'s Vizrt company as well as other Zionist and Masonic companies):

1) Why did most witnesses describe *nothing* for the \"first plane\" and said the North Tower merely exploded?

2) Why did most of the surprisingly small total witnesses to the first strike of the South Tower describe a \"small plane\" (sometimes even saying with \"no windows\" or \"no markings\") for what hit the South Tower? AGM bunker buster missiles are made to look like airplanes.

3) What is the purpose of faking commercial airliner graphics and covering up the events of the day with *completely fabricated* \"hit\" and \"collapse\" footage as well as hiring fake witnesses, fake injured victims with fake \"close call stories\"? What\'s the purpose of hiring actors to shout loudly to those that saw \"something\" that \"OH YES YOU DEFINITELY SAW A BOEING 767\" (Flying at impossible sea-level speeds as any commercial pilot will explain and merging with the buildings like a knife flying into butter? I don\'t think so.)

If there were \"remote-control\" airliners taken over by \"hijackers\" or \"hackers\" as Mr. Eastman ascribes, what would be the purpose of making sure there is no legitimate video of the true cause of the towers destruction or the pentagon damage?

How did these remote control microchips magically enhance the mass of the aluminum-bodied plane to crash through steel girders and in some cases of official video magically healing the girders once passing through them!?! How did the official videos get confused in such a way that different videos show clearly different flight paths for allegedly the same airplane and this \"airplane\" also flying unlike any real aircraft is capable of flying? This is not later fabrication; this is all the official videos of the news recorded on home VCRs.

Be careful of people like Mr. Eastman who declare \"I know what happened\" and then accuse others of being disinformation.

I do not know about the Directed Energy Weaponry. It is a proven technology, and it surely may have been weaponized, but I don\'t know if it has been *reliably* weaponized. What we do know is that nuclear weapons are at a highly advanced stage. Mister Bush and his pals - soon after entering office - began pushing the defense industry to produce nuclear reduced-radiation Bunker Busters and sell them to foreign countries. Why would he be so eager to push his favorite product \"Bunker Busters\"? Why would companies RockwellCollins and Raytheon be coincidentally contracted just before the time of 9/11 to produce just such a series of weapons? Why did 9/11 apparently serve as a commercial for such weaponry, since the sale of such weapons has sky-rocketed since?

Why would spare and desperate-sounding articles make it known to us in several ways before 9/11 that the future of war may involve \"news hacking\" or the complete digitalization of the media world to convince us of false \"Terror\" attacks by fabricated hijackers, terrorists and evil-doers? Who is surprised that the U.S. agencies who sheltered and hired Nazis into the intelligence community after WWII would now be in charge of our entire government?

Does anybody even know what the sinister MITRE corporation has done to our country since 1958?

Look at the AGM-158

Despite Wikipedia\'s slightly misleading photo, the AGM is more conventionally launched from F-15 or F-16 attackers. What were the alleged military craft doing in the area?

No clumsy Boeing crashes were necessary, nor desired. Hyper-accurate missiles covered up by 100% fake Hollywood-style \"News\" a la the movie \"Wag the Dog\" are far more effective at deceiving people ... as Mr. Dick Eastman has demonstrated to us.


3.  (Reply)
----- Original Message -----
From: "BM" 
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 6:30 PM
Subject: Siterun Contact Request from Fourwinds10


 HP is largely mistaken in his reply to Dick Eastman. This person doesn't seem to have taken the time to research more of Eastman\'s excellent work on the matter.

 In fact, droned planes were likely substituted for the remotely-hijacked jetliners during the morning\'s NEADS-NORAD-CANR drills. (One can find audio online of flight controllers scrambling to get a handle on what was happening.) Who had the capability to override several sensitive electronic systems simultaneously is a good question.

 Jetliners containing passengers may have been vaporized over the Atlantic Ocean, just as a plane appears to have been vaporized (using preinstalled thermate?) near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Multiple eyewitnesses in NYC told of seeing PLANES (not missiles, not faked video footage flying through the air). Plane parts were found in NYC; in fact, here are photos of an engine at the intersection of Church and Murray Streets:

 Also, footage from a multitude of angles and multiple different photographers shows basically the same impact details, as the droned plane substituting for "UA175\" strikes the South Tower. In a sense, this droned plane functioned as a \"missile with wings\", as there would not likely have been a pilot or passengers on board. If certain video footage was subsequently altered and released in order to create confusion, that changes nothing about the sequence of original events.

 By the way, the Naudet propaganda/snuff film betrays foreknowledge of the WTC attacks: