Your insinuation that I conduct activism without research is good for a laugh, thanks. For the record, though, I never said I actually *do* promote your work to others, just that if I did I would, as I do with anything else, suggest that the person consider the information and come to their own conclusions and also warn them that there have been numerous efforts to spread disinformation purporting to be the truth about 9/11 and that I cannot personally vouch for anything except the fact that we were definitely lied to about this, that or the other thing.

In contrast, your approach as evidenced here is to proclaim what you have discovered the truth to be and badger anyone who does not say they agree with you 100% without question. This is the only conclusion I can come to, having said already that I agree with your conclusions on the condition that your witnesses (and/or you) are being honest. Since you can't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, and since your arguments rest primarily on the testimony of these wtnesses, I can understand why it might frustrate you that you will therefore not be getting a ringing endorsement from me (or whoever else sees this the way I do) any time soon. At least not the kind of endorsement you seem to be seeking which is that you and the witnesses you interviewed could not possibly be part of the kind of disinformation campaign that has been proven to be all too common in the movement thus far. You want people to express faith in you? Become a televangelist. On the other hand, if you want people to consider the evidence you have produced, you'd be well advised to change your approach and tone.

That said, I am familiar enough with the tactics employed by the cover-up to not fall for the old "the guys promoting this are obnoxious so it must not be true" fallacy. The flyover explanation is not your personal property and believe it or not was something that people were discussing as a possible explanation for the eyewitness accounts before anyone ever heard of you. Whether it was a flyover based on a north of Citgo approach is not all that relevant--the fact that the scene was staged, with lamp posts felled to make it appear as if a plane crashed into the Pentagon when none did is evident from the absence of a plane or any credible remnants of one on the scene. Your work, I'm sorry to say, is therefore superfluous at best. I KNOW a 757 couldn't have crashed into the Pentagon regardless of how or where the "decoy" plane may have flown over it. Proof of deception is proof of a crime, yes, and a north side approach would seem to add to the already glaring evidence that AA77 was not flown into the Pentagon as we've been told. But there is a possibility, however small, that you and/or the witnesses are lying. There is no possibility on the other hand, that our eyes are lying to us when we look at the crash scene and see how absurd the suggestion that AA77 flew into it is. There is also no possibility of being deceived into thinking that no credible evidence for AA77 having been a real flight has been produced--that is a self-evident fact.

This is what makes your self-importance and zealotry so interesting, and, dare I say, slightly suspicious. I can't shake the feeling, and I know I'm not the only one, that anyone behaving as strangely as you do is hiding something. What it is I can't say for sure at the moment, but believe me that it has no bearing on how I perceive the facts, possible facts, and impossibilities surrounding the Pentagon on 9/11. Your work and the witness statements you collected are now part of the case, of course, and will be considered. What I want no part in however is having them be the subject of needless arguments and wasting of time and energy that is better spent on other subjects.