Dick Eastman is an activist, who holds a degree in economy and works as a clerck in a video store. He is sometimes depicted as sympathic, and sometimes as a real crap, mainly in this later case by those who had some relationship with him and dared to emit any critic about his ideas. He is indeed, this is the least that can be said about him, somehow a "mad dog" in his relationship. His fight against the "neo cons' new world order" can't be ignored by anyone who browsed a little on the newsgroups or receives list diffused mails on political or economical subjects such as gulf war II, economics problems in the United states, the "patriot act", framing-up or covering-up various events by the Bush administration. The oddities in the 911 events appeared to him, as to some others including me.

He was probably one of the first to react to the "Hunt the Boeing" web site. As I did first, he focused on the thesis of a missile or remotely controled fighter plane for the attack on the Pentagon. His theory tries to conciliate the witness accounts of an airliner flying towards the Pentagon on 911 and the idea of a military type attack on the following way :

The crew (at least pilots) of flight 77 would have been party in the conspiracy
The Boeing 757 would have flyed towards the Pentagon. Just under it, as to make it invisible by radars, or on a raze to the ground discrete trajectory somehow different, a "killer jet", such as a F16 fighter, would have hidden itself.
When arriving onto the Pentagon, the F16 would have fired a missile : it's this missile's smoke plume and tail which is visible on the cctv images.
The missile would have hit the front of the Pentagon.
The remotely piloted F16 would have hit the building, on the same point than the missile, entering the first floor through the hole made by the missile. It's engine would have crossed the whole building, making the "punch out" hole.
The Boeing would have flyed just over the the front of the Pentagon, the bright fireball (white then orange) which developped there allowing it to escape from witnesses' view.
The Boeing would have done a manoeuvre to land in National Airport, located just on the other side of the Pentagon.
The passengers would have been taken discretely to another place. Either they have been slaughtered, or they are party in the operation and are now enjoying a millionnaire life on some paradisiac island under the tropics.

The number of witnesses accounts and the various objective facts (plane's remains, impacts, ...) should have pushed him out of these hypotheses. But he cannot admit to say "I made a mistake of thinking" or "I was pushed to error by some oddities" and wants to defend his first hypothese against all and everybody : all those who tried to explain him that he was wrong because a theory cannot violate facts are put on the status of "disinformation agents party to the conspiracy" :)

I took some time to examine this theory, made some plots like a grid to place some witnesses in the scene and demonstrate that their account couldn't be exact. I also made a diagram to show him that the assumed manoeuvre of the "Boeing which landed in National Airport" implied a turn with a too high load factor and was impossible. But how could an engineer and a pilot dialog with somebody who has absolutely no technological background, doesn't know the basics of flying, is most of the time out of logical reasonning, ignores the meaning of the words "prove" or "refute" ? I finally gave up.

This being said, when Dick Eastman stays in a domain where he has skills, his reflexions can be brilliant. Here is one of them about the possible cause of targeting the first floor of the west aisle of the Pentagon, which houses the operational center of US naval intelligence :

Since the Clinton years, intelligence, especially in reference to the CIA, has been divided into the so-called "Red Team" of internationalists (giving the store away to China etc.) and the "Blue" team (more nationalistic and loyal to the Constitution) -- like the difference between George C. Marshall (elitist and China sellout) and MacArthur (anti-Communist, not of the secret aristocracy that is the eastern establishment power elite like the Rockefellers, Harrimans, Bush Familty etc.)

Naval Intelligence had a degree of autonomy -- the idea was that if one intelligence center was compromised there would be a second intelligence center to detect the treason and give the warning.

Naval Intelligence was not on the same teams of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, the political leadership believe in ends-justify-the-means Machiavellian crimes that the cloak of secrecy allows them to get away with, whereas the organizational leadership of Naval Intelligence would not go along with killing over 2000 of our own people in order to light a fire of war fever under the American public.

If not destroyed, Naval Intelligence would have detected the truth and acted in the appropriate way -- the way you and I are reacting just in the capacity of alert ordinary citizens -- but they would have been listened to because of who they were.

Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz had not fired, killed, re-assigned all the many patriotic Defense workers who would have given them trouble by the time they were ready for the 9-11 frameup -- they found it easier to order them all to attend a secret meeting at the specified room where they were all caught and killed by the combination of missile and jet fighter that tunneled through the first floor and got them A dive from above would not have worked as the concrete floors of the five story building would have limited dammage to people on the first floor -- the fireball going up from the upper floors and not down.

This meeting in a ring C meeting room, in the the west aisle of the Pentagon, with top brass and people of the NIS "to analyse the ongoing attack" is not something out of Dick Eastman's brain : it's real. It's enough to have a look on this page or to that one to be convinced. Finding who organized this meeting and chose the meeting room could be of the highest importance for finding the truth on the Pentagon's attack.

The impossible landing of flight 77 in National Airport

Dick Eastman claims that "the Boeing which overflew the Pentagon, in a diversion manoeuvre, while a "killer jet" was firing a missile and crashing into the building, rapidly escaped the witnesses view - hidden behind the fireball of the crash - and landed in National Airport which is just on the east of the Pentagon. NO WITNESS accounted for this final trajectory of "flight 77", though some of them were in high rises, had a view over the Pentagon's roofs, and were in a sight line of the crash zone (Crystal city, Pentagon city) on an angular sector different of the "Boeing's trajectory" in such a way that the flight path over the Pentagon and after coulnd not be masked by the fireball. This should be enough to understand that this theory doesn't hold water. But there is more. To land in National airport, the "diversion Boeing" should :

Either have landed in north to south direction, after a sharp turn, i.e. on the opposite direction of the overall traffic on this airport that day.
Or have crossed this general traffic at low altitude over the zone where planes take off, and come back after a "wind back" flight leg (south bound) to land in the right direction after a final "U" type approach.

Both of these alternatives are VERY unusual, and absolutely no witness, be it on the ground outside the airport, on the ground inside the airport, in other planes (grounded or flying around the airport), in the control tower, reported for such an emergency manoeuvre which, undoubtely, would have surprised normal witnesses and shocked professionnals of air traffic.

There is more shocking... In order to land, according to the first hypothese, in the seconds following the overfly of the Pentagon, as Eastman claims it, the Boeing would have to make an extraordinary manoeuvre, out of reach of a 757 : a turn razing the ground (or the water of the Potomac) with a too high g factor. The following diagram shows the situation

In purple the trajectory of this "Boeing" over the naval annex, the Pentagon, and a 270° turn to the left to fly again over the Pentagon (just by the window of Donald Rumsfeld's office"), to land on runway ~14 (heading 150°). Other trajectory, in red, with a 90° right turn, and landing in runway ~17 (heading 170°). In blue another possible turn, over the golf course, and landing on runway ~21 (heading 210°). The yellow arrows show the radius of these turns. Approximately 600 m (see scale on upper right of pic). The central acceleration on such a turn is given by :

A = s^2 / R (A=acceleration in m/s/s, s=speed in m/s, R=radius in m).

Applying this formula with a speed of 100 m/s (~220 mph) gives an acceleration of 16.7 m/s/s or about 1.7 g. This would not cause the plane to loose its wings, but it's impossible to achieve because the plane would need to be banked 60° from the horizontal, and it would stall and crash, even piloted by an ace. Higher speeds make it even more impossible. Each plane has a minimum turn radius and would bet that for a 757 this radius is at least 1000 m (~0.6mile). As an amateur pilot flying in a mountain zone, I have been taught the only way to reverse so abruptly the heading of a plane : it's necessary to practice an aerobatic figure in the vertical plane. Obviously, such a figure over the 14th streed bridge in Washington DC would have been reported by thousands of horrified witnesses. This shows how imagination can bring somebody who doesn't know physics and laws of flight to propose nonsenses.

And finally, by the end of august 2006, came this email on a diffusion list :

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:08:58 -0700 Subject: [frameup] I am wrong about Flight 77 Pentagon. Outstanding video simulation of attack on the Pentagon using Boeing 757 -- shows poles, smoke trail I now believe that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon -- that this explanation best fits the data. Dick Eastman Here is a very fine simulation of a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon -- not perfect, but enough to convince me I am wrong. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8 showing the lampposts being knocked down on the way in -- smoke coming from the starboard engine after hitting the third pole -- then taking the viewer over to the security camera north of the crash and showing the Boeing behind the yellow pass reader box with the tail fin visible and the smoke trail following, but also with the nose of the plane sticking out to the right of the pass reader box which of course we do not see in the video -- then taking the viewer back to Washington Blvd in front of the crash to see the plane enter the Pentagon -- a little impossibly since almost the entire fuselage enters the first floor, leaving the tail fin to take out the pillar 14 on the second floor (the top of the port wing is hits right in the middle of the first-floor windows, the top of the fuselage not even reaching the windows of the second floor -- then the viewer is taken a little south to see the port side of the plane as it approaches the Pentagon -- showing the plane stricking the generator and the engine hitting the fence and then matching it up with a picture of the damage with the bite taken out of the generator and the hole in the cyclone fence -- WHICH I FOUND VERY PERSUASIVE TO THE POINT THAT I AM NO LONGER CONVINCED THAT IT WAS NOT A BOEING -- the most convincing part of the exhibit -- really makes me doubt my conclusions -- even though it did not refute one of my "proofs" (actually it supported many of them: it confirmed that if a Boeing were behind the pass reader box that the nose should be visible sticking out to the right of the pass reader box -- it showed the smoke trai and the tail fin, which is what I have always said they are -- and it showed that the engine must have hit in vacinity of pillar #16 -- although they do not attempt to simulate this detail of the crash, or explain why pillar #16 is still standing -- nor do they explain what could have caused the damage on the second floor to the right of (south of) pillar #19 -- nor how the piece of the starboard side of a Boeing 757 was found on the north part of the lawn -- all my little beloved "proofs" -- but I must admit that none of my arguments stands up to what the simulation proves about the damage to the trailer and the fence. I will just have to live with the contradictions. Please pass this around -- I don't want to hold up the search for truth any more than I already have. Yes, I know -- several people tried to tell me this before -- Ron Harvey and many others. Dick Eastman Yakima, Washington

Four years of nonsenses, terminated by a single sentence long mail to say "Hum... I think I got wrong"... Somebody else would have disappeared of the 9/11 research, dead with shame. Dick Eastman did not. Instead, since august 2006, he focuses on other sideways researchers, like Rosalee Garble or Gerard Holmgren, the "no planes on the wtc" theorists, to bash them. He goes on also with a "Zionists did it" repeated ad nauseam series of posts. Well, he doesn't know how they did it, but he is sure that zionists did it !

If Dick Eastman's goal and, incidently the goal of those who paid him, is to ridicule 9/11 investigators, I must say that instead of being a big success, this only ridicules those who use this type of disinformation methods.