Subject: Pentagon - The case for a 757
Date: 29-3-2005 2:55
Dear Mr. Hufschmid,
I just bumped into your site again and saw those "desparate wives" movies. They are incredibly interesting to say the least. However, I do have some very big issues with the "no-757-at-Pentagon" theory. If you click on the following link you'll see the case I put forward:
It's not that I necessarily want to prove a 757 hit, it's just you have no case for the fact it didn't hit. Every "missile witness testimony" or "silent engine witness testimony" has been taken out of context and 98% of the witnesses have been ignored. The hole is also exactly the right size for a 757. These are facts...why haven't they been corrected by now?
If you can tear my arguments to pieces I won't hesitate to mention on forums at which I posted to state I have been wrong. Several thousand people have read the article up to now and nobody has been able to make the slightest dent in what I wrote down, but maybe you can.
Date: 29-3-2005 8:53
I have discovered that it is a waste of time to argue over the issue. We can only present our evidence, and then let everybody believe what they want. Most people do not want to know what really happened.
For just one example, look at that image you call:
Mike J. Wilson's excellent reconstruction
I would bet all the money I have that nobody can fly a 757 that close to the ground. Furthermore, the image does not show that a 4 lane highway is in front of the grass, and therefore, the plane had to cross over the cars and then descend in a microsecond. Only a computer can react so quickly.
If you want to believe some dumb Arab can fly like that, go ahead. The Arabs can barely take care of their nations, and you think they can fly airplanes like that? There is no point in arguing. Believe what you want.
Date: 29-3-2005 22:16
Thx for the fast response, Eric. However, I see you are just waving away the issues at hand here. No problem, I didn't expect anything else.
1. Like I said in the article and as you could have seen in the first second you looked at my site, I don't necessarily believe Hani Hanjour flew that plane. That's completely besides the issue in this case. Just as the question if there's a cover-up or not. We're just dealing with some facts now.
2. All witnesses closest to the Pentagon state that the plane flew just a few of feet over their cars and hit the light poles. The plane could have hit at most 10ft above the ground as I showed in my calculations, although lower is likely. If you think it's a remote control that's fine with me...but why something else than a 757 when nobody mentions seeing anything else?
The simple questions I would like to see you answer:
1. Why do you constantly put forward the theory of a Global Hawk, while not one witness has claimed to have seen anything like this? If you disagree with this, please send me the quotes. (or put them in your movie)
2. Why do you constantly put forward the theory of a missile, while nobody has SEEN this? Why do you imply people have seen this? If you disagree with this, please send the quotes to me, but make sure you check to see if I didn't already included those quotes in part 9 of my article. (or put them in your movie)
3. Why do you imply the hole in the Pentagon is too small? Do you reject the fact that the hole caused by the left wing can easily be seen? Or that the total extent of heavy damage on the building is about 178 feet, with a physical hole of about 100 feet? If you do agree, why did you never mention this in your video?
4. Why do you present only a few witnesses that claim the exact opposite as the 98% of the other witnesses?
5. Why do you disgrace someone like Steve Riskus by only stating he heard a quiet engine? You forget to mention he saw an American Airlines jet, gear up and knocking down light poles. The quotes are on my site. (and many others) Why do you imply that the only witness you show that claims to have seen an American Airlines jet must be incompetent, delusional or a government agent? You forget to mention at least 24 others who also specifically stated they saw an American Airlines jet. How is that possible?
6. Why do you ask in your movie the question "...but where are the witnesses who heard the tremendous roar?". I quoted 22 witnesses who said the plane's noise was very loud to deafening compared to a total of 4 I found who claimed they didn't hear that much noise. The thing is these last 4 sat in their car, windows up and radio on. At least one other claimed it was because of the shock that he didn't register any sound. Why did you miss all these people? They are at my site. (and many others)
7. Why do you treat 5 low quality Gif images as if they are reliable? It can only show a missile and absolutely no one has claimed seeing this. Your whole Pentagon story is "held together" by these 5 GIF's. If you want me to produce the same five GIF's, but this time with a flying elephant in them, just ask me. Of course, you'll need to answer my questions first.
8. How do you explain the reported and photographed downed light poles if you believe a 757 could not have done that? A. A superlight global hawk did this? B. Government agents pulled them out of the ground and threw them against cars right after the plane crash and in front of hundreds, if not thousands of witnesses?
I guess these basic questions are enough. If you answer them successfully, I will post on my site and on every forum I posted, that I was wrong. You'll never hear from me again. On the other hand, if you cannot answer them or refuse to do it, I will also send this mail to every corner of the internet.
It's time to deal with the facts, Eric. And for your convenience, here you have the core of my message (together with the size of the hole):
I repeat to you again, I do not claim there is not a cover-up. I just want you to answer the crucial questions above. That shouldn't be so hard, since you are THE 9/11 guru.
In a message dated 3/29/2005 11:50:14 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, -@planet.nl writes:
However, I see you are just waving away
the issues at hand here. No problem, I didn't expect anything else.
I could say the same about you, couldn't I? For example:
You wave away the issue that nobody, let alone an incompetent Arab pilot, can fly a sluggish commercial jet at 640 kilometers per hour a few millimeters above cars and grass.
I have no desire to argue about this. Believe whatever you want. Most of my own relatives want to ignore this issue. I don't need to argue with you about it when there are lots of people around me to tell me that I am mistaken. I can visit my own brother whenever I want to argue over this.
In case you are part of the group that did 9-11 and are now desperately trying to cover it up:
It is your own fault that you are in such trouble. You run one stupid scam after the next, but for what purpose? Money? Wars? Israel?
The world is a mess, but are you people really any better than the criminals who steal cars? What kind of world would you create if you were in control? Would it be a better world? Or would it be a world where you rape retarded boys, use people for slaves, and create a situation that would make the Middle Ages seem advanced? You might attract support if you showed more intelligence and less mental illness.