http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/9-11-NeXuS/conversations/messages/3371
Jul 28, 2007
note: this post also points out that recent Bush "law" against in any way hindering US policy in Iraq amounts to establishing a "thought crime" (more precisely an "a crime against expressing a "hindering" thought")Have you made any effort to investigate the question yourself, Andy McCracken, or are you just guessing that it is not so and asking us to prove it for you. And if you have investigated, HOW DID YOU MISS IT??? Does this list ban people for Anti-Holocaust-Denial-Law Denial. I have posted extensively on the holocaust being Zionist disinformation with full complicity of the governments which Zionism totally controls -- especailly German which is still in a sense under occpation by the Zionist victors of WWII.I can present again the established facts of the holocaust lie -- but first let us answer the question of whether hate laws exist.But first, one little note: Holocaust denial laws are an example of THOUGHT CRIMES -- the mainstay of all totalitarian dictatorships -- the proof of political slavery. You will not that the Bush executive order that allows the government to sieze accounts and other property of people SUSPECTED of giving support (including intellectual support) to the enemy thus "hindering" the effort to subdue Iraq -- itself is a species of thought-crime law -- or it would be if it was legal -- it is only law if the people bend down and take it, otherwise it is yet a nail-lined saddle of treasonous tyranny that has yet to put on the as-yet-unbroken horse. Which of us will get the inestimable honor of being the man or woman to stand in the breach against this this totalitarian uspurption of our right to share our minds with our countrymen.Dick Eastman postingsYakima, WashingtonEvery man is responsible to every other man.EU To Apply 'Hate' Speech Laws To The Internet
EU agreement on race-hate law Independent, The (London) - Find ...
Holocaust denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
6 Public reactions; 7 Laws against Holocaust denial. 7.1 European Union. 8 Other genocide denials; 9 Notable Holocaust deniers; 10 See also; 11 Notes ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
Readers: "WHY HOLOCAUST DENIAL LAWS...???..."
Holcaust Denial Laws. The question is why are there "Holocaust Denial Laws" on the books in some countries in the first place? ...
In much of Europe, there is a legislated "official truth" about the Holocaust. France passed its so-called Gayssot law, making Holocaust denial a crime, ...
www.sovereignty.org.uk/siteinfo/newsround/holo1.html
Blair backs Holocaust denial law
He said there were laws against Holocaust denial in many other nations, and rejected criticism that the move infringed free speech. ... BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Push for EU Holocaust denial ban
Germany hopes to make Holocaust denial a crime across the EU as part of a package of laws it wants to introduce during its presidency of the bloc. Holocaust Denial Law
Now let's look at one particular case -- how did Zundel's case escape your notice???Ernst Zundel Prisoner of Conscience Victim of Thought Crime
Ingrid Zundel On The Ernst Zundel Verdict
Ernst Zundel Canada Immigration Hearing Today
How Ernst Zundel Could Walk Free And Help Destroy The European Union
Update On Zundel Holocaust Heresy Trial
Zundel Case On AP Wire
The Art of Ernst Zundel
Summary Zundel Holocaust Thought Crime Trial
Zundel Hearings: Day Two
Zundel Holocaust Heresy Trial Resumes February 6
This quote is all a reader needs to confirm according to Dickless Eastman the Jews are behind not just faking the Holocaust, but controling post war Germany...somehow....
"I have posted extensively on the holocaust being Zionist disinformation with full complicity of the governments which Zionism totally controls -- especailly German which is still in a sense under occpation by the Zionist victors of WWII."In his anti-semite forthing on the keyboard Dicky's spelling starts to go.
Now Dicky has a new playmate: Victoria Ashley of 911blogger. At least he's writing love notes about her on his lists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/frameup/conversations/messages/51144
Dick EastmanNov 4 2013 3:55 PMitems1.
To survive Americans must domesticate their dollar. We'll never do that if we are tricked into thinking the dollar is "toilet paper" about to collapse and disappear.
2. What Kind of Girl Disagrees with Dick Eastman?I just found a our-year-old "debunking" critique of my evidence-derived conclusion that the the Boeing witnesses say flying towards the Pentagon actually flew over the Pentagon while planted bombs went off and a much smaller single-engine plane or missle (AGMs and cruise/drone) struck below. The critique was written in August of 2009 by Victoria Ashley, shown below. As always not one 9-11 "truther" bothered to inform me that this critique existed.
After this point Dickless the Jew hater launches into a Tl;Dr detailed examination of Ashley the Agent's critical deconstruction of another CT group called CIT(Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, Dominic Dimagio, Rob Balsamo). There is much drama and butthurt to go around of which, in the interest of saving space, only a sampling will appear:
"Victoria Ashely is one of a group of "false opposition" -- cover-up agents like Jim Fetzer and Alex Jones who obstruct justice to protect international organized crime that has gotten control of the American state apparatus and is conducting unconventional "Sun-tse" warfare against the United States with infiltration, sabotage and provocateur operations like 9-11. Who were the passengers of 9-11? Many of them appear to have been agents with false identities whose identities, but not their lives, were terminated with the 9-11 operation.Before I rebut Victoria Ashley here is an article exposing some famous disinfo artists who were both reported "victims" of 9-11 and who have have become Truthers who have conspicuously been gatekeepers and promoters of bogus theories and evidence......""THE "9/11 TRUTHERS" WHO ARE 9-11 "VICSIM" LOOK-ALIKES
Have prominent "truthers" lent their faces to some "victims" in the 9/11 Memorials?
This post is to summarize a hypothesis which has emerged due to a series of empirical observations - featuring some bizarre 'coincidental' aspects. As crazy as this may sound (but 9/11 WAS undoubtedly a crazy affair), we may find some victims in the 9/11 memorials which share remarkable facial AND name analogies with some well-known characters at the forefront of the so-called "Truth Movement". (all of them being notorious ...ehrm... money-makers.)
*
LUKASZ MILEWSKI (2001?) -----versus----- LUKASZ RUD(k)OWSKI (2009?) (Prison Planet spells name without the "k")
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/people/3664.html ... /3664.html
This is what "MILE"means in Polish: "pleasantly" - "kindly" - "affably" - "heartily"MILEWSKI - RUDOWSKI ....get it ?
Anyhow, looks like the Wearechange 'frontman' Lukasz is good at raising money...:
Paul Isaac(NY sentinel) wrote:
Show message history
"Eastman: Long before Ashley wrote her article I had argued very stongly and emphatically that each of the CIT arguements that Victoria Ashley lists above were indeed false. I stated that the gash cut in the top of the generator truck and the downed fence along the "light pole path" had to have been caused by the real killer jet (a cruise missile, or a drone fighter plane like the F-16 as the big plane flew to the North. Now as for the damage imprint in the side of the building I pointed out that the hold at column 14 was indeed wide enough to accomodate the fuselage of a Boeing 757 hitting at that location -- but I also pointed out, using many photos that are no longer shown much -- but you can see them at the Rense page mentioned above -- "
"As for the DNA identification, years ago I pointed out that when ever organized crime take over a city the first person they replace is the coroner and the forensic teams -- so that they will be able to get away with murder. You will notice all of the political suicides pronounced by coroners who reach that conclusions under the most improbable circumstances. A fake DNA report is very easy to produce when a conspiracy that has taken over Washington, that involves the conquest of many nations and trillions of dollars is at stake. Victoria Ashley is not that naive, obviously.
Victoria Ashley: And at this point, the doubts are just beginning. Given the complexity of such fakery and sleight of hand, most who attempt to confirm the full story end up at one of several dead ends in the scenario. The claim that so much evidence at the scene of the Pentagon was staged in advance, so precisely and amidst hundreds of people in all directions, simply to make it appear that the plane which approached the building had actually impacted it, strains credulity and logic."
"Eastman: All espionage agencies of big governments and the staffs of big organized crime that controls governments and corporations have groups capable of performing so-called "black-ops" which use not only every trick of visual deception but also the behavioral technology (for example anchoring, differential reinforcement, and conditioning tricks that distort the interpretation and reporting of what is seen. Black Ops work -- and people don't know that such technologys exist and that they do work -- and so they are vulnerable. Once again, is Vicoria Ashley that naive and ill informed. My guess would be that she is not."
Victoria Ashley: Thus, it is important to have a look at another possibility, another reality, in which the "no Boeing impact" claims had never happened in the first place, and instead -- rather than endless internal sqabbles of what that hit the Pentagon and easy media attacks about "conspiracy theorists" who think the plane never hit and the passengers were dumped into the ocean -- the many other glaring questions, anomalies and absurdities of the Pentagon attack story, essentially ignored by media and the 9/11 Commission, had had even a fraction of as much energy devoted to them as "no Boeing impact" claims.
What is that story, and what are those questions?
What CIT and many other no-Boeing-impact focused efforts have created is essentially a historical vacuum in which readers and viewers are disconnected from the original larger context of the attack and its aftermath, in favor of the hyped soap opera mystery in which an elderly cab driver's apparent role in the attack is central, rather than officials in Bush Administration who were in charge that day.
Eastman: Here is a case where one side or the other is guilty of laying a smoke screen of false argument to throw off those seeking the truth. Certainly the Citizens Investigation Team has done that, but what about Victoria Aslely or Dick Eastman? Which of us is "muddying the waters" with disinformation? Remember, we who first presented the thesis that no Boeing hit the Pentagon (Key Dewdney and myself for example) presented the no-plane evidence years before the CIT group showed up... "
"There has been no vaccuum. I have always since early 2002 been trying to put out exactly the evidence and implciations of that evidence that I am putting out now. Alex Jones, Carol Brouillet, Mike Ruppert, and many others -- including Jim Hoffman who suddenly and for no good reason backed away from my conclusions afterwards showing much less familiarity and honesty with my position than he showed when he was with me. At any rate -- I was first -- I was kept out at the gate as were a lot of other good men who eventually folded up and went back to their lives. I never gave up. The CIT group and Morgan Reynolds leaving the White House to join the no-planes-hit-the-WTC operatives are all black ops designed to bury or otherwise distract from the many conclusive lines of evidence that Eastman, Dewdney, Richard Stanley, Jerry Russell, Peter Wakefiled Sault, and others. The CIT group -- like the no-planers (at the WTC) and Pilots for 9-11 Truth are all distractions, phony investigators out their to mislead and to lead away for those trying to get out the real and conclusive evidence of the deceptive false-flag attack on the Pentagon.
And as for discrediting Taxi driver and witness Steve (Lloyd) England, I have accepted his story. Mark Bilk, another of the real investigators, phoned England and asked him about what he saw. England said he saw the plane but not the crash. He said that he wondered whether the plane had flown over the Pentagon. Englands story fits my analysis and was taken into account when drawing conclusions. It was the CIT group who came, confirmed by finding of planes passing north of the gas station (interviewing the same witness I had spoken with and corresponded with years before -- Sgt Lagasse) and then proceeded to put out this propostrous thesis that England was lying, that the poles were planted there etc. Yet Victoria Ashley -- ignoring the real Pentagon findings for all those years -- waits until CIT comes out with their bogus show-stealing absurd theories forgetting all about the investigator who fist uncovered the facts and who first drew the right and sensible conclusion. Only after CIT entered the scene does Victoria Ashley show up to "disprove the flyover" using only CIT to argue from. She mentions my name below but none of my findings and nothing about my conclusion which are so different from the straw man arguments so conveniently provided by Citizens Investigation Team."
"Eastman: All of these point to a job with the complicity of people in the highest postions of the Bush administration as well as Israel and dual-citizenship American Jews like Zakheim, Perle, Libner, Feith, Wolfowitz, Kissinger and many others. "So clearly that the no-planes hit the wtc, the CIT and perhaps (probably) Victory Ashley's contributions as well and all of the gatekeeping by Brouillet Ruppert, John Judge and others had to be fielded. Again, all of the facts Ashley presents I was puting out nearly every day and certainly many times a week years before she appears on the scene to attack my conclusions by arguing against the staw-man mockery of my position represented by the CIT investigators. (Although it is my opinion that Aldo Marquis was honest in all this, and simply used by the real CIT fraudsters who ran the CIT show.
"While the Citizen Investigation Team appears to be a "grassroots" team, it actually consists of Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke and is the "Citizen Investigation Team LLC". Indeed, the formation of a limited liability corporation would seem to be necessary given the methods engaged in by CIT of recording individuals without their knowledge and reframing witness statements to fit a conclusion opposite to what they believe themselves to be describing."
"The obvious outcome of claiming that witnesses are proving a point which they themselves object to, is shown in a communication from a witness and Pentagon Police Sgt. William Lagasse, who wrote to a website which published claims he had described a flyover (before CIT made the same claims) in 2003"
"I live with what I saw everyday of my life, It has taken a long time to deal with the images, screams and anger I felt that day, to be honest your website angered me to the point I wanted to just curse and rant and rave but I decided this would be much more helpful in quelling misconceptions.The Statements of Sgt. William Lagasse AFPN; June 24, 2003http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/"
Eastman: When APFN forwarded a letter to him from Lagasse I immediately put out the letter and contacted Lagasse by email. I asked him for a detailed account of what he saw, where he say it and from what angle. He insisted of course that the plane struck the Pentagon. That was understandable. But in three letters and two or three phone calls I definitely established that Lagasse saw the starbord side of the plane (on the pilot's right when he is seated in the plane) -- I made sure that Lagasse and I agreed on which side was starboard and which side was port - we did. He stated that the plane flew north of him. He assumed the crash was caused by the plane he saw -- we both understood that from the beginning. I never tried to change his mind. I only wanted the facts. Years later the Citizens Investigation Team -- checked up on my witness and my conclusion. The got Lagasse's account that the plane passed north of the Citgo station -- and his surprise at learing that the first pole downed was south of the station. It is what Lagasse saw, not what he thought happened, that matters. And that is what I used. My approach to witnesses was much more careful, systematic and yes, scientific, that CIT. Lagasse, despite what he may think happened has confirmed the flyover by what he says he saw -- and by what other witnesses that I did not know about confirmed -- including another military policeman and a gas station attendant. My account is the only one that reconciles what most witnesses reported with the story of physical events told by wreckage (light poles, fence, generator trailor etc.) -- and Victoria Ashley dismisses my conclusions without ever investigating the specific case I built from several independent and conclusive lines of evidence.
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
And thank God for that!
From this we learn, according to Dickless Eastman, :
-Takes personal credit for creating the No-Plane Hit the Pentagon "theory":
Remember, we who first presented the thesis that no Boeing hit the Pentagon (Key Dewdney and myself for example) presented the no-plane evidence years before the CIT group showed up
-Uses the promilitia, "patriot" network APFN:
When APFN forwarded a letter to him from Lagasse I immediately put out the letter and contacted Lagasse by email.
-Is mad CIT stole his thunder:
Believes Jews are behind the attacks:Yet Victoria Ashley -- ignoring the real Pentagon findings for all those years -- waits until CIT comes out with their bogus show-stealing absurd theories forgetting all about the investigator who fist uncovered the facts and who first drew the right and sensible conclusion.
All of these point to a job with the complicity of people in the highest postions of the Bush administration as well as Israel and dual-citizenship American Jews like Zakheim, Perle, Libner, Feith, Wolfowitz, Kissinger and many others.Thinks Ashley is a "gatekeeper", along with other CT scammers/dupes:
So clearly that the no-planes hit the wtc, the CIT and perhaps (probably) Victory Ashley's contributions as well and all of the gatekeeping by Brouillet Ruppert, John Judge and others had to be fielded.And (very important) claims not to know about or have been informed of Ashley's critique, until this email in Nov 2013:
The critique was written in August of 2009 by Victoria Ashley, shown below. As always not one 9-11 "truther" bothered to inform me that this critique existed.
Dick Eastman is a Liar.
The Article is called "To Con a Movement" and was published Aug 1, 2009. It can be read at 911 Review: 911review.com/articles/ashley/pentacon_con.html
And Eastman knew about it, and sent emails, as part of a forward, about it to his fellow Holocaust denial losers in 2012 on 9-11-Nexus:
http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/9-11-NeXuS/conversations/messages/17328
*********
----- Original Message -----
From:Dick Eastman
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 11:17
PM
Subject: David Ray Griffin and Richard
Gage compromised - in their
denial of the Pentagon evidence and
witness testimony
In Yakima it's still eleven years after
9-11 -- and so I will put out one more
post on that
topic.
I have found a few people who share my
view
of the Pentagon attack -- I quote them
below discussing Richard Gage and
David Ray Griffin.
But first you will read Richard Gage's
rejection of the "Citizen's
Investigation Team" investigation which found
witnesses confirming the flyover thesis
I reached years before the CIT took up
the question. Richard Gage has been
sent my analysis of the situation even
before the CIT people joined the
discussion. He has been sent enough
information to know that the criticisms
of Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashely, Legge,
Gregg Roberts, Chandler and Hill do not
apply to my work. Richard Gage has
written to me stating that he refuses
to get involved with questions of who
might be responsible for 9-11. Now he
has let himself be surrounded by
people who have persuaded him to drop
the best evidence. He of course is
the great leader of the movement. I am
a nobody who writes every day,
giving away my articles, and gets no
response -- I who have been
rejected precisely because I do lead
and I am not afraid to state my conclusions
come what may.
So I find people who agree with me.
You can read them below. But
ironically, not one has heard of me. At
any rate, I wish them well, because I
at least, know that they are
right.
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
"The 9/11 Truth movement will be
more likely to succeed in its effort to
educate the public about the Pentagon
by focusing on those areas of greatest
agreement. " -- Richard Gage
The "Truth Movement" has
rotten
leaders.
Jim Fetzer, Kevin Barret, David Ray
Griffin
and Richard Gage
Richard Gage Completely Withdraws
Support from CIT
by Richard Gage
In early 2009, I watched the “National
Security Alert” video by the
Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where
recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts
of the attack on the Pentagon were
presented (of many more that were
interviewed). These accounts included
the witnesses’ recollection of the path
being taken by the plane prior to
impact. The path that many of them recalled
was to the north of the former CITGO
gas station. Based on these few accounts
CIT presented its case that the plane
flew over the Pentagon since the damage
trail was not consistent with the north
path.
My main focus relative to 9/11 had been
on the destruction of the
three World Trade Center skyscrapers. I
had not been able to spend much time on
the Pentagon issue. I was initially
impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more
than a year and a half ago, provided a
short statement of support for their
efforts.
After making my statement I became
aware of more details of the CIT
witness accounts as well as the rest of
the compelling eyewitness testimony that
is available. The vast majority of
eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover
conclusion, as they entail that the
plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low
it could not miss.
I was also surprised to learn that 12
of the witnesses that CIT
interviewed (including six witnesses to
whom CIT refers to as north path
witnesses) were in a position to see
the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they
saw the plane hit the Pentagon. It was
clear from this that CIT used improper
investigative methods. CIT used and
presented only those portions of their
witness reports which fit their
conclusion. The preponderance of CIT’s own
evidence in fact supports the
conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon.
(See Summary and Analysis of “National
Security Alert” and other works listed
below for these and many additional
witness statements that describe the plane
as clearly impacting the Pentagon).
Because of these concerns I provided
new statements in December 2009
and January 2010 pointing out that my
previous statement of support should not
be interpreted as an endorsement of
their conclusion that the airplane flew over
the Pentagon. Despite these statements,
CIT has continued to publish my original
statement and characterize it as an
endorsement of their flyover conclusion. I
am hereby now on the record clearly as
NOT supporting the CIT investigation at
all. In addition, I insist that CIT
delete my name from its web site in any and
every context in which it might give
the impression of support or endorsement of
their efforts from me.
I base my present position also on a
number of blogs, papers, blogs,
and videos that have shed light on the
Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT’s
work. These papers should be among
those studied by anyone seeking the full
truth about these matters. Most of
these works analyze additional evidence and
come to different conclusions than CIT
does.
Relevant critiques of CIT and their
National Security Alert
include:
Summary and Analysis of
“National Security Alert”, Chris
Sarns, Feb 5,
2011
9/11
Pentagon Witnesses: They Saw the Plane
Hit the Pentagon,
Video by Jeff Hill, June 14, 2010
Overwhelming Evidence
of Insider Complicity, David Chandler
and Jon Cole, Dec
2010
“Debating”
What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration,
Name-calling, and
Threats, Gregg Roberts, Jan 2011
And critiques that examine CIT’s
earlier work “Pentacon” are helpful
as well:
Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or
Critiquing
PentaCon, by Jim Hoffman, July 2009
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon
‘Magic Show’, Victoria
Ashley, July 2009
Relevant peer-reviewed papers (posted
on Journalof911Studies.com):
Flight
AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports
the Official Flight Path Leading to
Impact with the Pentagon, Frank Legge,
(B.Sc.(Hons.),
Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, (B.Sc.(Hons.)
Comp. Sci.) January 2011
What
hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and
its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11
Truth, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.),
Ph.D.), July 2009
(updated Feb 2010)
There was a time in the four years
after 9/11 when I simply assumed
that the official story of the
destruction of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 was
true. One could say that I “endorsed”
the official story based on what I knew at
the time, but as I learned more, my
opinion of what happened to those buildings
evolved radically. John Maynard Keynes,
father of Keynesian Economics, once
said: “When the facts change, I
change my mind. What do you do, sir?” A similar
evolution has occurred in relation to
my view of CIT’s work.
I strongly recommend that people who
care to research what happened
at the Pentagon take personal
responsibility for forming their own conclusions
by acquainting themselves with a wide
range of analysis done by people who have
come before them rather than jumping to
conclusions based on a skewed selection
of evidence and argument, or being
unduly influenced by any type of authority
figure. Use your own discernment, based
on your use of the scientific method to
arrive at a coherent theory that you
can confidently stand behind.
One of the authors cited above, Frank
Legge, PhD., admonishes us to
adopt a “prudent approach” to the
Pentagon piece of the 9/11 puzzle. In the end
he wisely advocates the “precautionary
principle” which is to “assert only what
we can truly know,” given the
contradictory evidence, misinformation,
disinformation, and lack of information
from official sources, and the
difficulty in verifying much of it,
years after the fact and with inadequate
resources.
Legge concludes that there is prima
facie evidence that “the official
explanation of the event at the
Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He
concludes as well this negative
hypothesis: that there is “no proof that a 757
did not hit the Pentagon.” And, since
officials are holding the cards (videos)
as to what did or didn’t hit the
Pentagon, Dr. Legge’s recommendation is that
investigators “take care to avoid
publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit
the Pentagon”.
We can all agree that no hijacked plane
should have been able to
violate the airspace of our nation’s
capital and hit the headquarters of the
most sophisticated defense system in
the world – an hour and a half after the
assault began on the Twin Towers.
The 9/11 Truth movement will be more
likely to succeed in its effort
to educate the public about the
Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest
agreement.
Sincerely,
Richard Gage, AIA
********
Ashley's article is misdated, but the link is the same: To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’, Victoria
Ashley, July 2009
Why is Dicky lying?
One reason is the 911 Nexus yahoo list is private. So he probably doesn't think anyone can find out. And this is where many of the "truther" scams blaming Jews or anti-Semites "agents" are propagated ...because the 911 Nexus is a hot bed of Holocaust Denial trash.
The entire list was exposed sometime last year , revealing more than a couple of scammers:
How Jews are a threat to Humanity:
http://911nexus.blogspot.com/2012/11/9-11-nexus-crypto-fascist-yahoo-list.html
The anti-Semitic hoax the Protocols of Zion:
http://911nexus.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-protocols-of-zion-toolkit-parts-1.html
A fake front to trap anti racist "truthers"(dupes):
http://911nexus.blogspot.com/2012/11/911-nexus-2-front-group-and-antifascist.html
And all about the list owner, a tech geek from Silicon Valley who fled to South America, the safest haven for Nazi wannabes.
Dick Eastman's Nazi connections still don't explain why he's pretending this is the first time he's seen Ashley's piece. It isn't like he doesn't know about her; she knows about him:
Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:08 am Post subject: Reply with quote Dick Eastman is a long term disruptor and has been around since the days of Webfairy. He is an anti-semite whose main contribution was to "catch" the sane people who decided they were pretty sure a missile didn't hit the Pentagon and ensnare them with his "Killer Jet" theory -Ashley's criticism of anti-Semites sounds strained now the website she moderates, 911blogger, is being run by someone(Tilton) who if not an anti-Semite, had no problem pushing "Jews did it" cult propaganda in the past, but this isn't about Ashley or 911blogger. It's about Dicky.
"The theory's postulated overflight of the Pentagon by Flight 77 strikes many -- especially people familiar with the geography of the area -- as absurd. Vocally promoted only by Eastman, it has remained relatively sidelined." http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/theories/eastman.html
This was the basis for the film, the Pentacon, the hoax claim that the plane flew over the building and "no one noticed."
Dicky wants readers to believe he just discovered Asheley's piece. Are they preparing for a conspiracy con tango show? At least one CT/dupe pugged or fell for this crap, along with some truly disturbing "vicsim" garbage :
http://therebel.org/news/eastman/dick-eastman-rebuts-victoria-ashley-what-kind-of-girl-disagrees-with-dick-eastman/
Or is he just crushing on Vicky?
Final note on Vicky: she likes to bleat about frauds and hoaxes, even linking to CT blogs :
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/01/first-reaction-to-financial-crisis-report-whats-the-point/70410/
The full link is http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/01/inside-scoop-on-financial-crisis.html
and a search will real many 9/11 "truth" posts. Now we know 911 "truth" is a fraud, what the hell is Vicky whining about? She's got no problem with frauds, lol.
Looks like Vic and Dick have more in common than they thought...
No comments:
Post a Comment