At 9:10 PM -0700 5/27/04, senhor san wrote:
>Dear Eric Salter,
>
>I have just finished reading your critique of the "no-plane" theories
>
><http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html>http://www.questio
nsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html
>
>and find your analysis intelligent and, as far as I can see,
>thorough. I did not need much convincing, however your varied
>reasons for rejecting the "whatzit" hypothesis convinced me of your
>high competence in this kind of analysis.
>
>It so happens that I too have a thesis that denies that an airliner
>hit a building on Sept. 11, 01, as claimed. Is sat that evidence and
>witnesses indicate conclusively that Flight 77 overflew the
>pentagon as a smaller jet fired a missile into the Pentagon ahead of
>its own crash. I have gathered all of the evidence which yielded
>this conclusion on two webpages.
>
><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/4>http://groups.yahoo.c
om/group/911crimefile/message/4
>
><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911crimefile/message/3>http://groups.yahoo.c
om/group/911crimefile/message/
>
>I am asking for your "peer review" of the seperate lines of proof
>-- for you to distribute to the 9-11 investigation community as you
>have your last investigation article.
>
>Can you refute the small plane thesis?
>
> I believe you will render a service to all who seek the truth about
>9-11 if you take on the "small-plane" thesis with the same critical
>eye you have applied to the theory of Webfairy's "whatzit."
>
>Respecting your service to the truth,
>
>Sincerely yours,
>
>Dick Eastman
>Yakima, Wa****ngton
|
