Moved From Pentagon Section - No Witnesses Who Place The Plane On The South Side? Options

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

Witness number three…

Albert Hemphill

His account: -

“As I stood there, I instinctively ducked at the extremely loud roar and whine of a jet engine spooling up. Immediately, the large silver cylinder of an aircraft appeared in my window, coming over my right shoulder as I faced the Westside of the Pentagon directly towards the heliport.

Where was he Q24? Did you ask him? Did you clarify? Because he is in either in the middle or the north side of the Navy Annex. That would be the plane on the north side path, coming over his right shoulder. See why you actually have to speak with witnesses not just analyze from behind your computer screen putting your own spin on it?

DID YOU ASK HIM WHICH SIDE OF THE GAS STATION HE SAW THE PLANE FLY ON?

The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus, seemed to come directly over the annex,

Ah more intellectual dishonesty. Why didn't you bold "come directly over the annex"? "Come directly over". THAT is NOT the officially required and damage path required NTSB alleged black box flight path. It cannot fly "directly over" the Navy Annex, that would be what Ed Paik and Terry Morin saw it do, Q. THAT IS THE NORTH SIDE FLIGHT PATH!!!

It must remain on the south side of Columbia Pike at all times! It didn't:

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/flight%20path/NTSB_RADES3.jpg)

as if it had been following Columbia Pike - an Arlington road leading to the Pentagon.

Can he see Columbia Pike? Nope. He is more than likely reiterating what he heard other people say. It was deduction based on hearsay and either way, a north side witness can easily still deduce that it came up Columbia Pike.

The aircraft was moving fast, at what I could only be estimate as between 250 to 300 knots. All in all, I probably only had the aircraft in my field of view for approximately 3 seconds.

Oops, but on the south path the plane would be traveling 460 knots. That is a lot slower, confirms what Morin, Middleton, and other saw. It also supports the slower bank required after "coming directly over the annex".

The aircraft was at a sharp downward angle of attack,

Sharp downward angle? Did he explain that you? Was it going to dive into the ground? Can you elaborate on what he meant? Oh you can't? Because you haven't spoken with him you say?

on a direct course for the Pentagon.

Oooo. More bolding. Hey so was the north side flight path plane. It too was "on a direct course for the Pentagon".

It was "clean", in as much as, there were no flaps applied and no apparent landing gear deployed. He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just "jinked" to avoid something. As he crossed Route 110 he appeared to level his wings, making a slight right wing slow adjustment as he impacted low on the Westside of the building to the right of the helo, tower and fire vehicle around corridor 5.”

Really? How did he see that when the plane approached on the north side of the gas station? He is more than likely deducing if not outright lying. He saw the low alleged impact hole in the side of the building and assumed it did that or, he is lying. Because again, the plane approached on the north side of the gas station which means it cannot impact low and level. Nor show up on the gate cam low and level.

I don’t think an image is necessary for this one, the bolded text makes the flight path described by Albert Hemphill’s account self-explanatory. Over his right shoulder as he faced the Pentagon from the Navy Annex, as though along Columbia Pike (the easiest parallel reference to describe heading), direct course for the Pentagon and he also witnessed the low impact. This can be closely reconciled with the official flight path but not with a North of Citgo approach.

Why? Because you said so? Again, he said "coming directly over the annex", THAT is irreconcilable with the official NTSB, alleged black box, flying at 535 mph/460 knots, south of Columbia Pike, south of the Citgo, over the bridge and through 5 light poles flight path.

The only excuse I have heard for this account is that he was inside the Navy Annex building so could not have witnessed any of this. My rebuttal, obvious as it may be, is that he was looking out of a window.

Nice strawman. I haven't read that one anywhere. Let alone coming out of the mouth of CIT.

Are there any other grievances against the account of Albert Hemphill?

Well since we have proven there is a conspiracy regarding this plane, the flight path, the data, and the alleged impact. It is worth noting that he is military as well.

This post has been edited by Aldo Marquis CIT: Aug 25 2009, 03:01 PM

[paranoia]

The only excuse I have heard for this account is that he was inside the Navy Annex building so could not have witnessed any of this. My rebuttal, obvious as it may be, is that he was looking out of a window.

where and by whom did you hear such a dismissal? source it.

the fact is he probably did see it, on a continuation of the path witnessed by Terry Morin, and he (like others) deduced or was fooled into seeing what he thought was an impact. but as far as the path he is describing, we dont know which end of the building he was on, but supposing he was here:

(IMG:http://i28.tinypic.com/29fxq3d.jpg)

the plane (or some substantial portion of it) could then be to his right, which would still be North of the citgo, and would still match what the majority of real-living actual witnesses attested to live, on-camera and on location.

(eta - note the above pic was taken post9/11, and the building in question is now gone - replaced by the airforce memorial. BUT my point stands about hemphill's possible location being on the northern side of the building.)

This post has been edited by paranoia: Aug 25 2009, 03:28 PM

[paranoia]

At approximately 9:45am I entered the old office of my friend Gary Ramos', directly adjacent to the executive director. This office, with two nice windows and a great view of the monuments, the Capitol and the Pentagon was "good digs" by any Pentagon standard. This was the office I'd been sharing while working the BMDO reorganization.

gary ramos' office was in room 12021:
http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/reading_room/905.pdf

(IMG:http://i28.tinypic.com/2hn5r49.jpg)

now identify that room and its location in the FOB building q24, and prove that Hemphill was close enough to the pike that "over his right shoulder" would put the plane south of - or directly over - columbia pike. trust me, i will be working on it too, but i'd like to see how much effort you are willing to put in to this task.

This post has been edited by paranoia: Aug 25 2009, 03:21 PM

[DoYouEverWonder]

Q24,

the link you posted doesn't even mentioned Albert Hemphill's name. Do you have an original source for this story? Or just this freeper pro-war site?

Hey Q24,

Someone didn't like us looking at Hemphill's account. You're link no longer works. It seems it's been removed from the Wayback Machine. Now why would they do that?

BTW: Here's a piece of Hemphill's account that you omitted in your post above:

At approximately 9:45am I entered the old office of my friend Gary Ramos', directly adjacent to the executive director. This office, with two nice windows and a great view of the monuments, the Capitol and the Pentagon was "good digs" by any Pentagon standard.

Ah, excuse me, but if he didn't go to Ramos' office until 9:45 AM, then he was a bit late to have witnessed the attack.

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Aug 25 2009, 03:55 PM

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

All of the witnesses I will present are on record, that’s how we know about them in the first place. CIT already did a good enough job of interviewing Ms. Zakhem as can be seen on the previous page. I quite agree that some outlets may have an agenda and apply spin to witness stories – this should be taken into account whatever the information outlet; it would be a mistake to confine this characteristic only to the mainstream media.

So are you trying to imply we have an agenda and have applied spin? Can you provide proof for your accusation?

Considering the last witness, Keith Wheelhouse, clearly claimed a South flight path which he even sketched for CIT… your argument is completely bizarre.

He could not see the flight path and clearly lied, so I am not sure why you are listing him. Your attempt at making him a south side flight path witness is bizarre.

Someplace, sometime I will go into detail of the deception of the Citgo reference point that CIT fall back on to ignore many witnesses. You see, it would be just as easy to use the Navy Annex as such a reference point to provide different results. For now, this is off-topic.

Um, lol, but isn't this about whether the plane was on the north or south side of the Citgo? LOL.

Ridiculous.

Before the thread is derailed any further, I will sum up what appear to be the complaints against Keith Wheelhouse: -

[list]
[*]Despite being able to see the Navy Annex and Pentagon from his vantage point, trees blocked the view of a reasonable section of Ketih’s described flight path and also the impact point.

You are quite the slickster with your wording huh? Let's rephrase that for everyone. Trees blocked the view of Keith’s described flight path and also the alleged impact point.

[*]Keith could not see other features including the Citgo station and bridge.

Right so how did he know to draw the flight path SoC and over the bridge?

[*]Keith inaccurately describes the C-130, ie too close to the alleged Flight 77 and taking an incorrect flight path.

IOW, Keith lied. I know, it sucks to be wrong Q24.

[*]Keith may be an attention seeker.

Yet, no matter what he is proven to be a liar, exhibited suspicious guilty behavior, and fits in perfecty with an operation that was designed to ambiguously reference a "second plane" in the airspace over/flying away from the pentagon.

[Q24]

Why don't you just post the names of all of these witnesses up here - save all of us some time. You're not actually adding anything to the accounts that have been rattling around the internet for years so what's the point of it all?

If I posted all the witnesses at once this thread would quickly lose all semblance of order – it would be a free for all whereby the weakest accounts would be attacked and others go unanswered for. The point of this thread is to present each witness to the official flight path and collate any complaints against them. By the end we should have a good idea of how many South side witnesses are on record and how many excuses the North of Citgo claim must use to discard them all.

the link you posted doesn't even mentioned Albert Hemphill's name. Do you have an original source for this story? Or just this freeper pro-war site?

It appears that the original source is no longer available, at least online. There are though many research articles that cite the account. Do you wish to add the contention against the account of Albert Hemphill that it could be made-up?

I don't understand or know, and I don't think anybody else can understand or know, the "approach the aircraft is required to have taken for the official story to be upheld" unless the government expressly claims, specifies and plots what that path is.

For the official story flight path to be upheld the aircraft must follow a route in line with the physical damage of the light poles, generator and Pentagon impact damage. This is exactly what enables the alleged North of Citgo approach to support the basis of the flyover theory. Your concern regarding lack of an official ‘government’ flight path is well-founded but I think most people know and understand what the official story flight path is required to be.

If he was inside the Navy Annex looking out a window and the plane “seemed to come directly over the annex” as reported here, he is a NOCP (North of Columbia Pike) witness, if not a NOC witness, as the Annex is to the north of CP.

If the aircraft flew as if it had been following Columbia Pike and when in view came over Albert Hemphill’s right shoulder as he faced the Pentagon… that’s one unlikely and almighty left then right bank (see image in next post) the aircraft would have to pull to get up and around the Citgo station. This is contradicted in any case by Hemphill’s assertion that the aircraft was, “on a direct course for the Pentagon”.

Objectively depicting the best fit to Albert Hemphill’s description provides: -

(IMG:http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/63278fb658.jpg)

As seen, this is again reasonably concurrent with the official flight path.

I also note that in this rather detailed report of subtle flight maneuvers allegedly witnessed in 3 seconds prior to impact, there is no mention of collision with light poles. Did he miss that or did he just forget when giving his report? He also does not describe in any detail the rather astounding impact itself.

I would think the event occurred so fast that Hemphill missed the light poles being hit. I do not know if he saw the physical impact or just the fireball, only that he must have seen the final approach to know that the aircraft “impacted low”.

Do we have an on-camera, on-site corroboration of this account, including where he was standing, what direction he was facing, where he places the plane in relation to the topography and precisely what he saw and didn't see?

Albert Hemphill specifically says he was facing the West side of the Pentagon with other reference points mentioned being the Navy Annex, Columbia Pike and heliport. In my opinion this is reasonably comprehensive. I will note the complaint that there is no on-site interview with Hemphill before I move on to the next witness.

[Q24]

Where was he Q24? Did you ask him? Did you clarify? Because he is in either in the middle or the north side of the Navy Annex. That would be the plane on the north side path, coming over his right shoulder.

On what basis do you claim Albert Hemphill was “in the middle or the north side of the Navy Annex”? The Pentagon could not be seen from either of these locations, certainly not the impact point or heliport that Hemphill describes. The logical deduction based on Hemphill’s account is that he was located on the East end of the Navy Annex.

NTSB alleged black box flight path. It cannot fly "directly over" the Navy Annex, that would be what Ed Paik and Terry Morin saw it do, Q. THAT IS THE NORTH SIDE FLIGHT PATH!!!

I’m afraid even Craig Ranke has admitted that Ed Paik does not support the North of Citgo claim. Anyhow, I will come to Ed Paik and Terry Morin in due course. They are in my opinion South side witnesses that no one seemed willing to discuss through to conclusion on the CIT forum.

Can he see Columbia Pike? Nope. He is more than likely reiterating what he heard other people say. It was deduction based on hearsay and either way, a north side witness can easily still deduce that it came up Columbia Pike.

More likely Albert Hemphill is well aware that Columbia Pike runs alongside the Navy Annex and the flight path he witnessed was a continuation of that trajectory. It seems giving Hemphill some reasonable credit in this way is at least as logical as trying to write part of his account off as a “deduction based on hearsay”.

Sharp downward angle? Did he explain that you? Was it going to dive into the ground? Can you elaborate on what he meant? Oh you can't? Because you haven't spoken with him you say?

Do you seriously want me to add that Hemphill described the aircraft on “a sharp downward angle” as a complaint against his account? You need to explain far more how this can be critical to his description.

Oooo. More bolding. Hey so was the north side flight path plane. It too was "on a direct course for the Pentagon".

No. If the aircraft came from Columbia Pike or over the Navy Annex then a sizeable left-right bank manoeuvre would be required to go up around the Citgo station. This is not “direct” to the Pentagon.

On a side note, why ever would the alleged flyover aircraft perform this completely unnecessary left-right bank manoeuvre? I mean the theory goes that the planners are thorough enough to have the light poles in position, the generator ready to explode and the planted explosives in the Pentagon all in perfect alignment to give the impression of the alleged Flight 77 passing through. On top of this the perpetrators would want the aircraft moving as fast as possible to limit witnesses and avoid detection of the flyover. So the pilot has his brief, lines up with all that to be faked damage approaching the Pentagon, years of planning rest on this and at the last moment… OOPS!!! LEFT-RIGHT!!!… what the hell? I bet his bosses weren’t happy! Did he sneeze at the critical moment or something??? This is the error of course which allowed the North side witnesses to single-handedly expose the whole 9/11 Pentagon attack plot.

It doesn’t make any sense and I’m not buying it.

Really? How did he see that when the plane approached on the north side of the gas station? He is more than likely deducing if not outright lying.

I will note the possibility that Albert Hemphill is an outright liar.

Again, he said "coming directly over the annex", THAT is irreconcilable with the official NTSB, alleged black box, flying at 535 mph/460 knots, south of Columbia Pike, south of the Citgo, over the bridge and through 5 light poles flight path.

Your rules are that any description not matching perfectly with the official flight path cannot support the claim. My rules are that eyewitness accounts cannot be expected to be perfect and from the account given we must decide if it is more supportive of a North of Citgo approach or official South flight path.

Well since we have proven there is a conspiracy regarding this plane, the flight path, the data, and the alleged impact. It is worth noting that he is military as well.

Ok, military as well.

[Q24]

the fact is he probably did see it, on a continuation of the path witnessed by Terry Morin, and he (like others) deduced or was fooled into seeing what he thought was an impact. but as far as the path he is describing, we dont know which end of the building he was on, but supposing he was here:

(IMG:http://i28.tinypic.com/29fxq3d.jpg)

the plane (or some substantial portion of it) could then be to his right, which would still be North of the citgo, and would still match what the majority of real-living actual witnesses attested to live, on-camera and on location.

To note, the location that picture is taken from is North of the impact point; not in alignment with any flight path North or South. I thought this should be mentioned so as not to give the impression the aircraft could fly in a straight line to the Pentagon as per Hemphill’s account, yet still pass North of the Citgo.

To get Hemphill’s account North of Citgo we must use some imagination to reach this: -

(IMG:http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/36fa34861c.jpg)

As I mentioned above, the left-right bank manoeuvre does not make sense.

gary ramos' office was in room 12021:
http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/reading_room/905.pdf

(IMG:http://i28.tinypic.com/2hn5r49.jpg)

now identify that room and its location in the FOB building q24, and prove that Hemphill was close enough to the pike that "over his right shoulder" would put the plane south of - or directly over - columbia pike. trust me, i will be working on it too, but i'd like to see how much effort you are willing to put in to this task.

I give up. Let me know if you find an office plan – good luck. I have laid out flight paths above, one when viewing Albert Hemphill’s account objectively at face-value and the other using some imagination. Believe what you will.

Ah, excuse me, but if he didn't go to Ramos' office until 9:45 AM, then he was a bit late to have witnessed the attack.

Correct – Albert Hemphill’s “approximate” time was not precise.

So are you trying to imply we have an agenda and have applied spin? Can you provide proof for your accusation?

I never mentioned CIT in relation to the section you quoted. Though, if it were on-topic, I would very much like to answer your questions.

Um, lol, but isn't this about whether the plane was on the north or south side of the Citgo? LOL.

The Citgo is not the be all and end all as CIT would have us believe where witness location is concerned.

[Q24]

Summary of complaints against Albert Hemphill’s account: -

• His account could be made-up.
• With some creativity applied to the account, the aircraft could still have passed North of Citgo.
• Hemphill did not see the light poles being impacted.
• There is no on-site interview with Hemphill.
• Hemphill possibly deduced events based on hearsay.
• We do not know the precise location of Hemphill.
• It is possible that Hemphill could be a liar.
• Hemphill is military.

And with that, I move on to witness number four…

Alan Wallace, firefighter at the heliport

Except of his account: -

“I later said the plane approached the Pentagon at about a 45 degree angle, but later drawings showed it was closer to 60 degrees.”

This description supports that the aircraft was not coming in face on to the Pentagon West façade as the North of Citgo claim but at a perceived 45 degree angle closely supportive of the official South flight path: -

(IMG:http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/63aff768df.jpg)

What is wrong with this one?

[DoYouEverWonder]

Correct – Albert Hemphill’s “approximate” time was not precise.

So all you have is a link to a story that's disappeared. You do not have the original source for this story, nor do you know who wrote it or where it was originally published. In that case, we have no way to know if the story is real or not. Have you ever met or contacted Mr. Hemphill to verify his story or to find out if he even actually exists. No, of course not.

But at least you admit that Hemphill's “approximate” time was not precise. Well, then how the hell are we supposed to believe the rest of your 'evidence'?

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Aug 25 2009, 09:15 PM

[dMz]

OK kids- just an FYI- I just got out of an all-day meeting with several attorneys for a "mediation." I'm also currently watching a house-ful of teenagers so the parents could "date old-skool" and hit a rock-n-roll show.

I'm personally in NO MOOD for further discord tonight...

I also don't feel like handing out any warnings/suspensions, but I'll [EDIT2: LIKELY] lock any & all [EDIT3: OVERLY] contentious debate threads IN A HEARTBEAT the way today has been...

Just so everyone is clear- carry on (wisely, I hope)...

EDIT: I often find myself wondering why people don't avail themselves of a "COOL DOWN" period, and "tighten" their argument in terms of facts, logic, and clarity. Sadly, this appears to be a rare occurrence on the Internet...

[painter]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

[dMz]

OK- now I'm down to just the teenagers that belong in the house (I think)...

EDIT: OK kids- I guess that "today" is over now- carry on (wisely- I hope)...

[tnemelckram]

Hi Q!

I have split your paragraph responding to me into its logical sequence.

1.

Your concern regarding lack of an official ‘government’ flight path is well-founded but . . .

Once again, thanks. But I think this concession affects the rest of your paragraph.

2.

For the official someone's story flight path to be upheld the aircraft must follow a route in line with the physical damage of the light poles, generator and Pentagon impact damage.. . . . (I) think most people know and understand what the official someone's story flight path is required to be.

As you can see, I have amended these two sentences to reflect the fact that there is a lack of an "official government flight path". I think most people know and understand that the "government" claiming any flight path is essential to that flight path being "official". Without the government (or even some individual in the government purporting to speak for the government) involved in claiming that some alignment of these three phenomena is a flight path, then someone other than the government is making that claim.

a. Has some individual who works for the government made the claim?

b. Whether the claim has been made by an individual who works for the government or any other person, has the government then adopted their claim and said - "Yeah, that's what we meant to say. He got it!"

As I see it, ( a ) is an unconvincing way of establishing that the flight path is "official government", but at least arguable. ( b ) would make it "official" and/or "government". But right now the following would be appropriate names for this path:

a. The Path Aligning Three Selected Phenomena

b. Someone's Flight Path

c. Q 24's Flight Path

d. That Flight Path (which seems most appropriate).

I do not include "South Flight Path" because when it was initially claimed there would be no point of reference for it to be "South" of (unless its the beating of a Tell Tale Heart recognizing that the was a North of Citgo Path for it to be South Of).

So let's put aside my principle that the only person we have to address is the government. In that case, it is vital that we know exactly who to address our responses to. Right now we can only direct them to you (as we have done above). There may be more than one person claiming That Flight Path. We need to know most or all of them so that we can put our responses in front of them in order to facilitate a comprehensive as well as friendly debate. So please provide us with more information such as the person who originally claimed That Flight Path, where they made That Claim, a substantial number of others who also claim it, and where.

3.

This is exactly what enables the alleged North of Citgo approach to support the basis of the flyover theory.

As far as I can tell, the North of Citgo Path ignores "The Three Aligned Phenomena" and "Whatever Flight Path they Suggest" as opposed to being "enabled" by them. It, and its bases, are completely independent of and require no reference to them.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Aug 26 2009, 10:38 AM

[Q24]

But at least you admit that Hemphill's “approximate” time was not precise. Well, then how the hell are we supposed to believe the rest of your 'evidence'?

Why should an admitted “approximate” time be precise? It’s like claiming that black should be white. I don’t think the simple fact that someone may make an approximation in their account detracts from it at all. And this is not my evidence; it is the evidence.

As you can see, I have amended these two sentences to reflect the fact that there is a lack of an "official government flight path". I think most people know and understand that the "government" claiming any flight path is essential to that flight path being "official". Without the government (or even some individual in the government purporting to speak for the government) involved in claiming that some alignment of these three phenomena is a flight path, then someone other than the government is making that claim.

This is an interesting little side tract to the thread.

The claim of the government is that 9/11 was perpetrated by nineteen Muslim extremists who hijacked four airliners, one of which was piloted into the Pentagon. This is the “official story” as detailed in the 9/11 Commission Report.

The Pentagon Building Performance Report carried out by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) was authored by a core of six individuals, three of these belonging to government agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST). This study depicts actual damage to the Pentagon and the direction the plane must have impacted to cause it, along with another image of the generator impact and reference within to the light pole damage.

Not only were government employees heavily involved in the building performance study team but for the “official story” to be true it must comply with the Pentagon Building Performance Report. This is the “official government story” by default.

As far as I can tell, the North of Citgo Path ignores "The Three Aligned Phenomena" and "Whatever Flight Path they Suggest" as opposed to being "enabled" by them.

Absolutely not – without the “official story” the North of Citgo flight path wouldn’t actually mean a thing.


To all, is there not a single objection to the account of Alan Wallace?

[DoYouEverWonder]

To all, is there not a single objection to the account of Alan Wallace?

Well, one big problem with Alan Wallace's account -

So many people think Mark and I watched the plane hit the building. We did NOT. We
only saw it approach for an instant, I would estimate not longer then half a second. Others
didn’t understand why we didn’t hear it sooner. We did not hear it until right after we saw
it. I estimate that the plane hit the building only ½ a second after we saw it.

He was standing right there, he describes the plane in great detail (except the details were wrong) but he still didn't see it hit the building. If anything, his story supports a flyover.

[rob balsamo]

(IMG:http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/63278fb658.jpg)

Above path doesnt support light pole/generator physical damage nor NTSB heading data. Path too far south of "Impact Hole"

(IMG:http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/63aff768df.jpg)

What is wrong with this one?

Above path doesnt support light pole/generator physical damage nor NTSB Heading data. Path too far south of "Impact Hole"

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

Rob, didn't you know? He can make things up as he goes so long as he can twist it and make it fit his SoC flight path. lol. What a joke.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

Rob get a kick out of this strawman...

(IMG:http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/36fa34861c.jpg)

OMG. Is that the flight path Albert Hemphill drew for you? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

You are really hopeless aren't you, Q?

Good luck with that one.

[dMz]

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/b5b486a3ae.jpg

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=3002973

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)