In my defense

by **thoughtographer** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:40 pm

So, in other words, I used the term "hearsay" correctly. I knew the definition before I used it. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **robertdreed** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:43 pm

lo and behold. Yes, in fact, like a lot of words, "hearsay" has several widely accepted definitions and usages. It's more than a term of art in law. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/13/06 2:45 pm

by **Sarutama** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:44 pm

Its pretty simple really "I saw a plane hit a building." = eye witness testimony. "Frank told me he saw a plane hit a building." hearsay.

by **robertdreed** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:46 pm

That's the common laypersons usage, I'd say. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/13/06 2:46 pm

by **nomo** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:49 pm

"I saw a plane hit a building." = holograms! "Frank told me he saw a plane hit a building." = fascist disinfo! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes">

by **Sarutama** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:53 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> That's the common laypersons usage, I'd say.<hr></blockquote> And unless we're all lawyers here (You may be, but I'm certainly not.) then thats a pretty fair assesment. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> "I saw a plane hit a building." = holograms! "Frank told me he saw a plane hit a building." = fascist disinfo! <hr></blockquote> Well played sir, well played.

by **thoughtographer** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:00 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>lo and behold. Yes, in fact, like a lot of words, "hearsay" has several widely accepted definitions and usages. It's more than a term of art in law.<hr></blockquote> You were so quick to clear things up yesterday, I thought I would follow suit since I was the person who used the fucking word in the first place on this thread. I'm a layman, not a lawyer, and until these superhero pilots that people seem so fond of testify in court as to the impossibility of someone being able to make the necessary maneuvers to hit their target, there's no need to discuss any other meaning of the word -- unless you like that sort of thing. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **StarmanSkye** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:08 pm

and a few related comments; Wayne Madsen claims (without citing sources, natch -- so this has very limited circumstantial hearsay value): ... NSA personnel on duty at the NSOC that morning (9-11-2001) have a very different perspective. Before Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, NSA operations personnel clearly heard on the intercom system monitoring military and civilian communications that the "fighters are engaged" with the doomed United aircraft. NSOC personnel were then quickly dismissed from the tactical area of the NSOC where the intercom system was located leaving only a few senior personnel in place. NSA personnel are well aware that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did not "misspeak" when, addressing U.S. troops in Baghdad during Christmas last year, said, "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania." They believe the White House concocted the "passengers-bring-down-plane" story for propaganda value. RobertReed said: You haven't seen any physical evidence, slimmouse. You've seen a few pictures of physical evidence, a minuscule sample of photographic and video representations reproduced in middling-quality digital format on the Internet. To say that what youv'e seen is less than comprehensive is to indulge in gross understatement. As for your experience in analyzing the aftermath of airplane crashes, as far as I can tell it's all been picked up on your own time over the past few years, with no instruction other than the leading questions posed by people who provide no more credentials of expertise than you do- often using Flat Earth methodology, along the lines of "take out a lighter and try to burn a piece of aluminum foil. You can't do it!" etc. --unquote-- Well cripes Robert -- the same argument stands for your unwavering support that it WAS Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, and that the cell-phone calls were made as widely reported, and that the cockpit voice-recorder recorded a cockpit-struggle for control, and the DNA identification of all Flight 77 victims was established. But there ARE numerous faults with all these official conclusions, the actual evidence is contradictory and inconclusive, complicated by the many unexplained oddities of official actions, such as overlooking the Pakistan ISI Director/money link to the alleged hijackers, failure to provide the public with conclusive photographic/video images, failure to resolve the implausable lack of effective air-defense response, failure to explain the apparant semi-official protection provided the alleged hijackers or to resolve the controversial evidence that many behaved as playboys instead of fundamentalist zealots, demonstrated implausability that most of the reported cellphone calls were even possible due to technical limitations, failure to explain how it was possible that many alleged hijackers were given visas despite being on FBI watch-lists or that many recieved flight-instruction at US military-bases, failure to acknowledge evidence about the alleged hijackers found by other and independant investigators/researchers or to add to the paucity of details Government had officially provided, failure to account why officials destroyed evidence and prevented the NTSB from doing their jobs, etc. If Flight 77 striking the Pentagon was a slam-dunk, then WHY are there so many unresolved questions, and WHY is the government incapable or unwilling to acknowledge and respond to these questions? In this context, being rigorous demands that we ask these questions and try to find answers that fit -- at least better than the official answers do. Newkid: Damn, that's an intriguing link, <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/motive.html,">911research.wtc7.net/talk...tive.html,</a> providing the suggestion that whatever struck the Pentagon was exploded just before impact. And suggesting that the 'leaked' video images helped divide the 911 Truth Movement by providing evidence of fakery covering for a small-plane or missile -- thus aggravating difference of opinion with diehard conspiracy advocates repudiating EVERYTHING the official theory held. The effort to reconcile the numerous disparities between eyewitnesses on the one hand and the photographic evidence on the other have led to confusion and the kind of hair-pulling passionate exasperation as seen on this board. The 911research.wtc7 conclusion makes the best sense IMHO: While Hoffman's 2003 slide-presentation talk (borrowing information from Eric Hufschmidt) concluded that the impact damage is inconsistent with the crash of a Boeing 757, thus suggesting substitution of a smaller plane or missile, 911research concludes the damage is consistent with a Boeing 757-type plane that was exploded an instant before impact. THAT'S a compelling argument for why numerous facts about the Pentagon impact just didn't add-up. <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusions/index.html">911research.wtc7.net/pent...index.html</a> --quote-- Supported Conclusions about the Pentagon Strike Given the complexity of evaluating the evidence of the Pentagon strike, a number of competing theories have emerged, purporting to explain how the attack occurred. In order to better evaluate those theories we attempt to separate conclusions clearly supported by credible evidence from those theories, in order to avoid prejudicing the evaluation of the evidence. The evidence of the Pentagon attack can be divided into three categories: Photographs taken after the attack, showing debris inside and outside the building, and damage to the building and its surroundings Eyewitness accounts of the moments before, during, and after the attack Statements and artifacts from government sources Evidence in the first two categories is far more extensive than evidence in the third category, and is more credible, given the possible role of high-level government actors in executing the attack. One of the few examples of evidence in the third category is the set of five frames of Pentagon video apparently leaked by the Pentagon, which shows evidence of forgery. Superficially, the photographic and eyewitness evidence seem to support two conflicting conclusions: Eyewitness evidence: A jetliner with a shape and color matching an American Airliners Boeing 757 crashed at the Pentagon. Post-crash photographs: Whatever object collided with the building was not a Boeing 757, but something much smaller. The incompatibility between these conclusions has engendered a long-standing controversy within the 9/11 Truth Movement between those persuaded by the eyewitness reports that the attack plane was a jetliner and likely Flight 77, and those convinced by analysis of the photographic evidence that the attack plane was something else entirely. Proponents of the no-757-impact theories have argued that photographic evidence, being physical evidence, is more objective than eyewitness evidence and therefore outweighs it. The fundamental problem with applying this reasoning to the Pentagon crash is that it ignores the inferences required to conclude that no 757 hit the Pentagon based on the photographs. The eyewitness evidence is direct, with many witnesses claiming to have seen a twin-engine jetliner fly into the Pentagon and explode. Scores of other witnesses corroborate that account. In contrast, there is no credible photographic evidence showing the Pentagon being hit by something other than a jetliner -- only photographs of building damage and surroundings that many believe is inconsistent with the crash of a 757 based on a series of inferences. Errors in many of those inferences are exposed here. We believe that the above conflict is largely a result of a lack of care in drawing inferences from the evidence. The eyewitness evidence does not prove that the attack plane was Flight 77, but only that it had the appearances of the type of plane that Flight 77 was. Conversely, the photographs do not prove that the attack plane was not Flight 77, but only that the damage to the building does not have the appearance that most people would expect such a crash to produce. Indeed, several of the eyewitnesses who were convinced that they saw a large jetliner swoop towards the building and explode, expressed confusion about what had become of the aircraft when the smoke cleared. A scientific approach to resolving questions about the attack is to draw conclusions directly supported by all of the credible evidence and then formulating hypotheses that fit those conclusions. We believe that that a careful examination of the photographic and eyewitness evidence strongly supports the following conclusions, if it does not prove them. An aircraft similar to or being a Boeing 757 approached the Pentagon and exploded at or in front of it. If the aircraft was a 757, portions of it were destroyed before impact. The attack involved an explosive detonation not explainable by jet fuel combustion. (snip) (see link for hyperlinked analysis of major points and details above) Jim Hoffman's 'The Pentagon 'No-757-Crash' Booby-Trap sums-up the implications the Pentagon-crash conspiracy has had in fragmenting and discrediting the 911 truth-movement; I haven't diligently studied it, but he's put a great deal of effort into making a coherant study of what we CAN know about the Pentagon attack -- and should be a very useful resource for anyone sincerely interested in analyzing and learning more; <a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html">911research.wtc7.net/essa...ntrap.html</a> --quote-- The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded. Many researchers have ignored or dismissed this eyewitness evidence in favor of a seemingly overwhelming physical evidence case that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon, based on photographs of the crash site. As I show below, however, each of the pieces of evidence adduced in favor of the no-757-crash theory can be reconciled with the crash of a 757. The controversy over this issue has eclipsed the many documented facts linking the 9/11/01 attacks to insiders. Defenders of the official story have seized on this issue as representative of the gullibility and incompetence of 9/11 "conspiracy theorists." Contents The Allure of the Unsolved Mystery History of the Issue Ignoring the Eyewitness Evidence The "Physical Evidence" Case Unexamined Explanations Propaganda An Opening For Attackers How the Issue Plays Conclusion The Allure of the Unsolved Mystery The question of what hit the Pentagon has remained a source of intense interest and debate for almost three years now, overshadowing many other issues of the 9/11/01 attack. The controversy has thrived in the evidence vacuum created by official actions in the wake of the attack, which included the following: Minutes after the attack, the FBI seized from businesses adjacent to the Pentagon videos that likely recorded the event. On the day of the attack, Pentagon personnel participated in a rapid mop-up of the crime scene, moving and removing evidence before it could be documented. In the weeks following the attack, authorities controlled the crime scene, destroying or suppressing nearly all the physical evidence inside the building. This left primarily two kinds of evidence: eyewitness reports consistent with the crash of a 757, and post-crash photographs taken by passers-by showing neither large aircraft debris nor an impact damage pattern expected from such a crash. The ambiguous and seemingly contradictory evidence made the event a kind of Rorschach, spawning many competing theories but offering no basis for definitive conclusions. The mystery of the attack has lured researchers into endless debates, much to the detriment of public outreach around easily proved issues. Such issues include aspects of the Pentagon attack other than the question of what hit it. For example: The portion of the Pentagon targeted was mostly unoccupied due to a renovation program. The attack plane executed an extreme spiral dive maneuver to hit that portion of the building rather than the part housing high-level officials. The alleged pilot of Flight 77 was not competent to pilot a Cessna, let alone pilot a 757 through a maneuver that may have exceeded the skills of even the best test pilot. History of the Issue The Pentagon no-757-crash theory first came to prominence in early 2002 when French author Thierry Meyssan published "The Frightening Fraud," which theorized that a truck bomb was responsible for the damage to the Pentagon, and then "Le Pentagate," which held that the damage was produced by a missile. These well-marketed books sold millions of copies in Europe. Meyssan's analysis is notable for wild inaccuracies in characterizing the damage to the Pentagon's facade. He suggests the impact hole was 15-18 feet in diameter, and that there was no damage on either side of that hole. That description completely ignores the first floor damage, in which walls were punctured over a width of about 90 feet, a fact that is easily determined from analysis of photographs available on the web in early 2002. Meyssan also states that the piece of hull photographed by Mark Faram does not correspond to any part of a Boeing 757, when in fact it matches the hull just aft of the forward starboard door, as shown by Dick Eastman. Meyssan's "Le Pentagate" was published shortly after five frames of video from a Pentagon security camera were leaked. Meyssan and other theorists jumped on the fact that the first frame seems to show a much smaller plane than a 757 approaching the Pentagon, without asking if the video frames were authentic. In fact they bear clear signs of forgery. Meyssan's conclusions were echoed by Gerard Holmgren, who published the lengthy Physical and Mathematical Analysis of the Pentagon Crash in October of 2002. Like Meyssan, Holmgren relied on photographs in which obstructions hide large regions of first-floor damage. Holmgren's unwieldy manifesto-sized analysis was widely embraced by no-757-crash theorists. The sloppy analysis of Meyssan and certain other Pentagon researchers (such as their reliance on photographs in which jets of fire retardant foam and smoke obscure damaged areas) leaves these researchers, and by association the entire 9/11 Truth Movement, open to attack by detractors. Other work by skeptics of the 757 crash was far more careful. In mid-2002, an anonymous author produced a detailed damage assessment in an article concluding that the damage was consistent with the crash of a large plane, but not of a 757. In early 2003 Dick Eastman developed a "two plane" theory, which holds that the damage to the Pentagon was done by a small killer jet, such as an F-16, while Flight 77 merely appeared to crash, clearing the facade behind a pyrotechnic display and overflying the Pentagon in a kind of magician's trick. Eastman was unique among the no-757-crash theorists in at least attempting to accommodate much of the eyewitness evidence. In September of 2003, I helped to develop a slide presentation which concluded that "whatever struck the Pentagon was not a Boeing 757." This talk, which borrowed from the work of Eric Hufschmid and said anonymous author, further popularized the notion that a 757 was not involved in the attack. In early 2004, Richard Stanley and Jerry Russell added yet another variation to the mix of no-757-crash theories in The Five-Sided Fantasy Island, advancing a scenario that combines Eastman's Flight 77 overflight theory with the idea that demolition charges were used to produce the damage to the Pentagon. In late 2004 two new videos promoting no-757-crash theory appeared. Both combine slick production values with highly selective presentations of evidence. In Plane Site, a DVD, advances the no-757-impact along with the Building 6 explosion myth and highly dubious theories that the towers were hit by objects other than Flights 11 and 175. The obvious propagandistic quality of these pieces was one factor in persuading me to re-examine my own endorsement of the no-757-crash theory. Ignoring the Eyewitness Evidence Proponents of the no-757-crash theory have tended to minimize the many eyewitness accounts that a 757-like aircraft flew into the Pentagon and exploded. Many simply cherry-pick one or two accounts that seem to indicate a much smaller plane, and ignore the larger body of eyewitness evidence. This selective presentation of witness accounts is exemplified by a tendency to quote only a single phrase from a single witness: Mike Walter's use of "a cruise missile with wings." In context, it's clear that Walter was only using the cruise missile description metaphorically: I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low'. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. Another eyewitness account frequently cited as evidence that the attack plane was not an airliner is that of air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien: The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air-traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. That the controllers observed a plane being flown in a manner not normal for jetliner does not mean the plane was not a jetliner. Simple calculations show that the spiral dive attack maneuver was well within the capabilities of a Boeing 757. In fact, the body of eyewitness evidence provides almost no support for the no-757 theories, but does indicate that the event involved more than a simple plane crash, such as a sharp detonation wave not explainable by the crash of a jetliner. Once again, such substantial evidence that contradicts the official story has been eclipsed by the no-757-crash theory. The "Physical Evidence" Case Many apparent features of the crash that are documented by the photographs of the crash site -- and especially by photos taken before the overhanging section collapsed -- seem to support an overwhelming case against the crash of a 757. These features include the following. The lawn shows no signs of gouging from a 757's low-hanging engines, despite eyewitness claims that the plane hit the ground before the facade. The impact hole dimensions are not large enough to accommodate the entire profile of a 757. The lawn shows almost no signs of crash debris immediately following the crash. Photos from inside and outside the building during the recovery operation show very little aircraft debris. Damaged columns remain standing where dense parts of the plane, such as the starboard engine, would have hit. Unscored limestone and unbroken windows are visible in areas of the facade where the outer wings and vertical tail section of a 757 would have hit. There are obstacles in the plane's alleged flight path, such as cable spools. This list is far from exhaustive. Many other features are often cited as evidence against a 757 crash, such as the positions of downed lamp-posts, the orientation of the damaged generator, and the position and shape of the C-ring punch-out hole. The number of no-757-crash arguments based on these features, and the logical independence of many of them, seem to many to constitute an overwhelming cumulative case against the crash of a 757. Whereas a deductive case is only as strong as its weakest argument, a cumulative case is as strong as the sum of its arguments. However, a cumulative case may appear strong without actually being so if it is composed entirely of arguments that evaporate under scrutiny. Let's examine four of the more persuasive arguments, which I've given the following labels: The missing wings and tail The vanishing jetliner The incorrect impact imprint The obstacle dodge (snip -- see link for hyperlinks to further discussion/analysis) This site does an outstanding job laying-out the details and case for the Pentagon crash and controversy -- well worth further study for those interested in knowing as much as they can, or just to familiarize themselves with the key points. Thanks for suggesting it, Newkid. Beyond the petty sniping and insults (and yes, sometimes it IS tedious to wade thru) this is an engaging, intriguing discussion. Starman

by **thoughtographer** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:17 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Beyond the petty sniping and insults (and yes, sometimes it IS tedious to wade thru) this is an engaging, intriguing discussion.<hr></blockquote> If find sniping and insults to be more enlightening than the sort of collage-job you just posted. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **robertdreed** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:29 pm

That manuever was fully possible for a 757 jetliner. Just because you don't often see passenger jets doing long, swooping high altitude circular descents doesn't mean the airplane is unable to pull off the move. That said, it does appear to me like the sort of thing that a terror plot wouldn't entrust to a rookie. That brings up the hypothesis that someone else piloted the 757 into the Pentagon other than Hani Hanjour- a highly likely possibility, in my view. ( Hey, I'm not even sure if the interrogators have the right "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed".. are they? Do they care? ) What interests me about that is that it would seem to me that the list of pilots from Arab or Muslim nations well-trained enough to accomplish such a feat on a large airliner probably isn't a very large number. And many of the pilots thus qualified were trained by the USAF in the first place, at bases like Luke AFB and Maxwell AFB- although in the case of Pakistan, presumably some of their pilots got training from the Communist Chinese in years past, since those nations had a strategic alliance for many years. It might or might not be productive to search pilot rosters from the airlines/air academies/air forces/TDY foreign training programs of suspect nations, and tracking down retirees, etc. That would take a while, even with good cooperation from other countries. And a couple-three bureaucrats sympathetic to a terror plot could probably disappear or sanitize the files of a given pilot without too much difficulty. At this point, that's one of the weaker leads out there.

by **robertdreed** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 5:43 pm

Starman, your objections about Flight 77 are reiterations that have been brought up and addressed on other threads- and, in fact, on a site that I've linked on this thread, at the beginning of the discussion. They don't need to be wallpapered all over the page again. The reason that there are so many unresolved questions about Flight 77 is because in this day and age, some people are unwilling to accept anything less than comprehensive multi-angle recordings of the event as proof, so they can play "eyewitness" too, and replay it to their heart's content. (And, as we've found in the case of the planes hitting the WTC, even that degree of confirmation isn't enough to satisfy the squinting "pod people" and the "hologram" solipsists. ) Less than that, and they feel entitled to let their imaginations run wild- although, I POINT OUT ONCE AGAIN, not enough to actually construct a scenario for their own version that accounts for the variables required to work as anything like an acceptable explanation for their "substitute" hypothesis. I refuse to do your legwork for you. Given that, it's only possible to raise the most general sorts of objections, when people aren't even putting forth even the most sketchy chronological outline as a narrative for their favored version of events. They'd rather snipe and nit-pick at semantic trifles than attempt to explain in detail how, where, and when their pet UFO ( they never identify the "substitute" flying object, they only hazard guesses) got switched for the 757 jet, Flight 77- which was tracked for all of its final approach, either on radar or by multiple eyewitnesses, or both. They'd rather claim that photos/video of a crash site depicting the aftermath of the initial impact on the Pentagon wall- most (if not all) of which lack a precise time stamp and/or were obviously taken in mid-cleanup- "prove" that there isn't enough damage or debris to account for a full-speed 757 crash into a reinforced wall- as if the verifiability of that claim were axiomatic, rather than dubious to non-existent. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/13/06 4:29 pm

by **slimmouse** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:53 pm

ON this whole pentagon thing. I dont have a problem with people who believe that a plane hit the Pentagon, as long as that is what they believe. The trouble for me, is as I have highlighted often enough, that I cant imagine how ( other than RC, that this happening could have been pulled off ) Does that make my view 'Stoopid' ? Of course it doesnt, and this is no doubt what irks those of us who do believe there was no plane. For every objection to the No plane theory, there is an equally valid objection to the plane theory. Its easy enough apparently to highlight the reasons why it must have been a plane - The trouble being of course, that those people then pay scant attention to the reasons why it couldnt have been a plane - or at least not one piloted by any hijacker. And finally, as "stoopid and gullible" as my opinion might be to some, at least I have an opinion, and at least I say so. Not only that, but its the PHYSICAL evidence that is gonna wake the average Joe up to the clearly outrageous 19 arabs theory, as opposed to the intricate details of Stand down, Fiscal lies, Sibel Edmunds et cetera. I would actually readily agree that the latter are where the TRUE evidence lies - But unfortuneately such sophistication is beyond the gaze of the minions. And dont THEY just know that. It strikes me as particularly strange therefore that so many on this board recognise the Methods of the PTB in all of this - namely appealing to the masses with soundbytes, snippets and attention grabbing 10 second infoshots - Whilst at the same time refusing to use such proven methods to recruit. Why is that exactly ?

by **robertdreed** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:00 pm

"For every objection to the No plane theory, there is an equally valid objection to the plane theory." slimmouse, I haven't even seen anything resembling a "no-plane" hypothesis, much less a "no-plane theory." We aren't in the realm of "theory." We're in the realm of providing practical working hypotheses. Instead, what I've found is a clatch of amateur sleuths poring over the same few photographs of what's by all indications the first aircraft crash scene they've ever bothered to scrutinize in their lives, bringing up nitpicky, naysaying objections as if they had the faintest expertise in what they were talking about. And the fact that they've been repeatedly refuted seems to matter not a whit to them. They merely compound the exceptions they take, in response. But they never, ever offer their own what/where/when/how version of events in place. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 4/13/06 5:09 pm

by **slimmouse** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:11 pm

Robert you kinda cut my quote short. To my mind, if it was that plane, It wasnt flown by any flesh and bones in the cockpit pilot. Of course it could easily have been RC, and it could easily have been a plane. But like others have said on here, It would be nice to see the evidence with our own eyes. Mega mega mega Psyop involving the confiscation of all those available shots of this "airplane" ? ( Marriot hotel, Garage across the road, and Washington highway cameras, all of whom would have done what the pentagon was apparently incapable of, and captured the whole deal on camera. Only one reason for that I suppose. To hide the real evidence trail right ?

by **StarmanSkye** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:12 pm

"thoughtographer" said: --quote-- If find sniping and insults to be more enlightening than the sort of collage-job you just posted. --unquote-- Obviously -- you're just so GOOD at it, aren't you? It seems you find information and debate infuriating, if not intimidating. And yet you insult others instead of owning-up. Yes, it shows.

In my defense

Re: "hearsay"

Re: "hearsay"

Re: "hearsay"

Re: "hearsay"

Re: "hearsay"

Re: "hearsay"

Re: "hearsay"

Pentagon Impact: Eyewitness vs Physical Evidence ...

Re: Pentagon Impact: Eyewitness vs Physical Evidence ...

Re: "hearsay"

Re: "hearsay"

The point for me is this.

Re: The point for me is this.

With respect.

Re: Pentagon Impact: Eyewitness vs Physical Evidence ...

Who is online