... I gave you guys the benefit of the doubt. Not anymore.

In one breath you uphold the validity of your 13 (+1) witnesses as if that is the ultimate "evidence"... and then completely dismiss the 26 who claim to have seen "Flight 77" hit the Pentagon. That's somewhat disingenuous, don't you think?

Another disingenuous point you keep making is that you can hardly see the Pentagon from the street level on the highways as the streets adjacent to it.

There are several videos out there, and photos, taken from multiple angles, all around the Pentagon, that show the street level view of the Pentagon.

Anyone can go to Mapquest and take a streetside view of 395 or 110 or Washington BLVD and CLEARLY see that people would have had a clear view of the building that morning. Even if they didn't already see 20 videos shot that day from all different sides of the building from street level.

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

I don't know what the witnesses saw. But if I based my conclusions solely on what the "majority" of the witnesses saw, I would have to say Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon. But, the physical evidence, and common sense says that isn't what happened.

So, to you it's all about 13 witnesses... and a cabbie who is probably guilty of nothing more than insurance fraud...

I just read a little of your site, and you yourself say that a Global Hawks wingspan IS large enough to have knocked down the poles, and that it is ONLY 10 feet smaller than that of a 757... funny you didn't mention that just now.

Why is it so important for you to keep repeating that it WAS a "large commercial jet"... and to yell in caps lock that there was no Global Hawk? Just curious.

"Please. And he damaged his dashboard and disconnected his seatback off the center hinge???"

Who is to say when that damage occurred? the point is, the light pole didn't cause the damage. We know that. Anything else, from you or from me, is an assumption, isn't it?

"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"?"

13 witnesses is your "hard evidence"? Is that it?

What's completely obviously hypocritical about your 13 witnesses is the fact that you then spend 2 paragraphs speculating about why no one saw a massive 757 fly over the top of the Pentagon, right after they turned and looked at it when the thing blew up... and right next to 3 highways... at 9:30 in the morning, AFTER hearing on the news in their cars that 2 PLANES just hit the Twin Towers...

uhhh... what?

Let me hit you with this...

The light poles were staged. They were placed where they were found. Do you know why? Because, just like you said on your website that I just read, the Global Hawks wings couldn't withstand the contact with the poles, and they would have to be removed to get them out of the way. Right?

And let me ask you this... why is YELLING that no Global Hawk was there so important to you?

Your story and the Global Hawk are NOT mutually exclusive, are they?

According to you, the "large commercial airliner" was the distraction...

So how do you know it wasn't there to distract from an approaching drone aircraft whos cargo bay was loaded with high explosives?

Why so tense about the Global Hawk? What do actually think did the damage?

You really are pretty defensive here. That's odd if you ask me. A drone of some kind is the most logical hypothesis, but that has pretty much nothing to do with whether or not something flew by on a North approach. So why so defensive? Why so definitive about the Global Hawk?

"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK