[Ramona_A_Stone]

• One 757, with a wingspan of 124 ft 10 in, a length of 178 ft 7 in, a height 44 ft 6 in and a weight of 255,000 pounds going 530 MPH about 20 feet off the ground: About $80 million.

• Punching a neat hole in the Pentagon with no visible sign of plane wreckage: priceless.

• One A10, with a wingspan of 57 ft 6 in, a length of 53 ft 4 in, a height of 14 ft 8 in, and a weight of 47,400 pounds with a maximum speed of 449 MPH at sea level: About $13 million.

• A deaf and learning impaired dirt biker playing in the woods with crap in his diaper claiming he can extrapolate the effects of a 757 twenty feet off the ground from a dubiously reckoned 100 foot encounter with an A10: worthless.

About as worthless as the link you googled up to support your claim that there are "sworn eyewitness testimonies" in the 911 Commission Report, which turns out to be a link to nothing more than an outline anyway. Maybe you were too busy looking up "information" and "jet wash" on google to actually view and comprehend your own link. One has to wonder if you've ever actually read it at any time.

Here's the full report (on its "official" website, not the random copy you googled up) and guess what? There's not a single sworn testimony by an eyewitness to the Pentagon attack in the entire document. In fact, sections 1.1 and 9.3, which are the only sections dealing with flight 77 and the attack on the Pentagon, are fairly cursory and paraphrased encapsulations (the least extensively analyzed of the flights in fact) utterly devoid of any mention of reports of anyone on the ground who saw the impact occur. There is one mention of a pilot attempting pursuit who said "looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir." (page 25-26) In context this is in the form of a deduction, not the reporting of direct observation. And then on page 33 you'll clearly notice on the timeline a gap of more than an hour between losing track of the craft altogether and confirming that this lost craft was the same that hit the Pentagon.

Guess you were just lying your way through yet another attempt to appear informed, bolstered by your excellent grasp of search engines to compensate for your abject lack of comprehension, throwing around numbers like "160 witnesses" to attempt to gloss over your preferential, emotionally invested position of choosing to believe the "official view"--which you deny even exists.

(And again, if posting a link to the 911 Commission Report wasn't supposed to be an invocation of an "official view," then what is the point? You claim there's no such thing as an "official view" but refer to this document with the apparent belief that everyone who reads it should consider it absolute gospel truth, claiming it has sworn eyewitness accounts.)

Maybe you should actually watch the link esteeaz provided which actually does have references from no less than 12 eyewitnesses which raise some interesting albeit vague and thoroughly inconclusive questions. On the basis of your emphasis of the importance of eyewitness testimony alone it would seem it might carry more weight to you than a document which you claimed included eyewitness accounts, but that in reality does not.

At least it's an interesting trick that you were apparently able to reconstruct the entire event perfectly in your little head on the basis of eyewitness testimonies that don't even exist according to an official view that you deny exists but were able to link people to even though you didn't read it yourself...

I'm thinking perhaps you only recently learned to read and understand English, this might account for your profound lack of understanding of the ordinary usage of words which deviate slightly from the rote dictionary definitions. For instance "sound" does not always indicate an audible vibration or voice. In practice, written material may "sound" intelligent or moronic. You see, people who are more interested in the larger meaning of things often use a kind of inferential language around other adults, it's simply more expedient than trying to explain everything as if you're talking to an ADD four-year-old, which can get awfully nauseating after a while.

Perhaps you should get some friends and try going out on a Saturday night instead of hanging around your mom's house googling words like a pimply little geek, and you might learn something about normal human communications.

Also, it's pretty funny that apparently you actually believed me when I said that I saved your picture, even though I was lying and I am a clearly disreputable 'crackpot source.' Just goes to show that you're not quite as good at detecting truth and lies as you claim to be, but then frankly we all already knew that. In this case, as in most others, it seems your vanity and enormous ego got in the way of your preternaturally acute detective abilities.

At any rate, I'm sure this will all go 100 feet over your head like a squealing A10, but I really don't care, nor do I care what sounds you will subsequently make about it. The only reason I reply to your gurgling at all is that I admittedly get a bit of a sadistic kick out of watching you mock yourself with your hilarious little intellectual pretensions.

Questions aren't information. All I asked for was examples of information with an inconclusive aspect and all you give are questions.

You're so Mensa. That reminds me a little of the Monty Python skit where the guy invents the joke that's so funny he dies laughing and they have to translate it into German one word at a time so as not to kill the translators so they can use it as a secret weapon against the Germans.


Carry on.