I too would like to see Cl1mh4224rd's questions answered, namely because I asked one of them myself a few pages back (i.e. the light poles).

I may as well rehash my other questions as well:

*If the Pentagon was struck by a missile, what are we seeing in the video? My opinion is that a missile would be too small to see in the video, and the fact that we can see something disproves the missile argument.

*If the Pentagon was hit by a smaller fighter plane, would that plane be big enough to:
A) Create a fireball of that size?
B) Actually penetrate the building? (Keeping in mind the video, posted very early in this thread, of small plane shown to disintegrate when plowing into reinfornced concrete.)

* Earlier in this thread I asked about the philosophy of language. I asked "What is it's point?". We are now into page 17 of a thread supposedly about the Pentagon video, yet the majority of the pages have been filled with endless definition and semantic dancing. I think the answer to my question is "The philosophy of language serves no purposes other than to distract the conversation, and to halt the progression of knowledge". We've spent far too much time, to use a sporting phrase, "playing the man, rather than the ball".

__________________
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".