Hi Willy

Thanks for your kind words regarding your support of our work.

First off, I can certainly sense the angst in your tone regarding the list we have over at our forum. I am on your side and I explained above what the list is all about. I am not going to discuss it any further with you.

With that being said, let's get into your theory and incorrect assumptions about our work:

I don't fully support your conclusions,

You support the north side flight path don't you? You believe the witnesses correct? If you do, then you have no choice but to accept our conclusion of a north side flight path and a subsequent flyover. If the plane was on the north side of the Citgo, then it did not/could not hit the light poles/lloyd's cab, show up low and level across the lawn as seen in the dubious surveillance video, and cause the direction damage to the Pentagon. PERIOD. North side=flyover. Roosevelt Roberts=flyover. Erik Dihle's co workers=flyover.

That being said... now let's get to your theory.

What those witnesses saw is not a theory, Willy. Are you willing to tell them they only saw a theory?

The biggest problem you have with the flyover theory is the planes' escape. How much sense does it make, from a planning standpoint, to create a huge explosion, get about a 100,000 pairs of eyes turned and looking at the Pentagon, just as a massive passenger jet flies at tree-top level just over the building?

First of all that is an argument from personal incredulity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_personal_incredulity
Just because you can't believe that witnesses could see what happened and not come forward for you to see and hear does not mean they don't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We have the PRESENCE of evidence, that would be the 13+ north side eyewitnesses + Roosevelt Roberts (flyaway witness)+ Erik Dihle's co-workers (flyover witnesses. We also have the fraudulent alleged black box data as evidence that Flight 77 did not strike which also supports a flyover: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5732289044586758033&hl=en
What proof do you have that there were 100,000 pairs of eyes? There are barely even 50 published accounts to an impact!!! You are simply exaggerating and making general claims with no evidence to back it up. The fact is you can't even see the Pentagon until you are right up on it. On the highways surrounding it and the highrises on Army-Navy drive. People were not staring out their window waiting for the event to happen. They were not staring at the planes flight path waiting for it to arrive. They were surprised. Use your pre-9/11 mind, don't use your post 9/11 conspiratorial mind. The highrise witnesses more than likely looked out there window AFTER the event happened. There are planes flying over and next to the Pentagon all day 24/7 every 2-3 minute, ascending and descending. It would be easy to mistake it as another plane. In fact, Roosevelt Roberts DID mistake it for another "second" plane. That is why he was willing to talk to us. Once he understood the implications he became scared and did not want to talk. How do I know? Because I made him aware of the implications after we interviewed him and both Craig and I were rebuffed by him "because it was all moving too fast" and "he didn't want to talk about it anymore". Again, if any witnesses saw the flyover event in its entirety, they would be scare to death to talk (especially after seeing glossy news repoters come out say they saw it hit) or they would be confused. Those who simply saw a plane flying away and a fire ball rising would be in the confused category as well. They easily could have thought it was a errant plane coming in for a landing at or departure from Reagan National Airport right next to the Pentagon. See our explanation of the 2nd plane cover story. It is all over our site.

Do you actually think people would be looking at the smoke? Or the massive plane firing it's engines to gain altitude right over the highway?

Huh? Robert Turcios and Darius Prather saw it pull up over the highway, then saw a fireball and assumed it hit. People in the distance would see a fireball rising (not a common sight) and their attention would be on that not the airliner ascending next to over the Pentagon (A COMMON SIGHT).

Doesn't make sense does it? Not to me it doesn't.

You should spend a little more time thinking about it. We have. Furthermore we have evidence that it happened.

I agree that the light pole didn't hit the cab while it was traveling at 40mph. That much is pretty obvious.

But that doesn't mean LLoyd was in on it.

The north side flight path, his virtual candid admission of involvement, his lie about not being on the bridge, and his ear to ear grin means he IS in on it.

Try this on for size: The cab driver told you off camera that he "wasn't SUPPOSED" to be in on it. It was about "big people"... or something like that. Did you guys ever take that as a clue?

Of course we did.

That is called distancing himself from the people he was involved with. He knew he was caught, now he was trying to ambiguously imply he wasn't supposed to be involved.

Try this on for size: If you "wasn't SUPPOSED" to be part of mass murder, would you be eager to go on camera and tell your story? Would you grin ear to ear?

Perhaps the cab driver was just coming along and he saw the light pole there AFTER someone else dragged it out of the bushes. LLoyd wouldn't know that it was a set up. Perhaps he just saw an opportunity to get a new cab through the insurance? So he kicked his own window out, and made up the story.

Please. And he damaged his dashboard and disconnected his seatback off the center hinge??? Come now. How did he do that before the other people showed up, including the photographer?

Did that ever cross your minds?

Yes and it is not viable.

Now I don't read your site

Therein lies the problem.

To me, what hit the Pentagon was probably a Global Hawk. It could have been painted to look a bit like Flight 77 and the wing span is just as big as a jet liner.

Well you are wrong. There was no Global Hawk. The wingspan is NOT as wide as a 757: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=621&st=0#entry2277398

There is NO evidence for a global hawk. Why in the world would swap our hard evidence (which you call a "theory") for an unsupported "theory"?

The global hawk, much like the missile, was a useful tool of disinformation. Again, there was NO global hawk.

You have your 16 or so witnesses that report the North Approach,

13+ and a flyaway witness.

they have their 26 that say Flight 77 hit the Pentagon,

Who? Who did they speak with? Who did they interview on camera, on location? Who did they speak with that put the plane on the south side or refutes our witnesses? 0! None. So they don't have 26 that say the plane hit or even explain HOW it hit approaching from the north side of the Citgo.

and there are others who claim it was a "private jet" or a "business class jet"...

And those less than 5 people were far away so it would look small. Steve Gerard, of the DoJ, I spoke with and he was very evasive. He behaved exactly as someone who was lying would behave. Again, this does not negate the north side approach a large commercial aircraft WHICH proves it did not hit the building or the light poles.

And of course, when people started investigating Global Hawks years ago, just also happens to be around the time the Hoffman crew started showing up "correcting" the dialogs in the chat rooms.

That is not evidence. That is your unsupported suspicion. THERE WAS NO GLOAAL HAWK. ANYWHERE.