While looking into the “Burlingame’s Daughter” matter, I noticed this article.

It appears to introduce two new pieces of information:

“Her father, Charles Burlingame III, was the pilot of American Airlines 77 when terrorists took control of the plane and then crashed it into the Pentagon. An examination of his remains showed the 51-year-old former U.S. Navy captain struggled with the terrorists and was killed before the crash, according to published reports.”

[What examination of what remains?]

“Wendy Burlingame was photographed during the burial ceremony hugging her son as they looked at her father's flag-draped casket”

[What son?]

see article here: http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/index.ssf?/base/news- 0/1165388732252490.xml&coll=3

A number of oddities in this story.

See also:

article http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1165388500252490.xml&coll=3

article http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1165388300252490.xml&coll=3

Video and photographic evidence is an important part of the 9/11 evidence kit. From the Naudet’s capturing of the first explosions at WTC to the collapse of WTC7 late in the day to the aftermath at ground zero, the pentagon and Shanksville, the video and photographic images of the day have been instrumental in creating much of our understanding of the events of 9/11. Many have presented various images in support of their positions, yet the authenticity of many of these images has never been established.

I would like to address two questions: 1) Which images can we trust? 2) How can we assess the authenticity of a particular image?

Considering the technologies available to anyone with a computer, prudence dictates a healthy skepticism regarding the authenticity of much of the video and photographic “evidence” presented by all parties. Whether through the insertion of objects or the masking/blurring/removal of others, the forgers have manipulated much of the available imagery. Trust must be earned. If we are to include video and photographic images in our evidence kit we must first establish, to the best of our ability, their authenticity.

The most telling clue of forgery in images is anomalies in “light and shadows”. It is extremely difficult to accurately create the appropriate lighting/shading/shadow throughout a “doctored” image. Many forgers rely on the viewer’s attention being focused only upon certain key elements and not on "less important” elements. It is often these minor elements which reveal the forgery. Additionally, the forger often creates anomalous “shadows” over large areas in an attempt to ‘resolve’ these issues. Careful examination of the lighting, shading and shadows of an image is quite useful in establishing its authenticity.

In this two-part presentation, Jim Fetzer gives an overview of the destruction at ground zero.

High-quality aerial photos and some interesting video are used to outline his working hypothesis.

Topics include WTC 6, a theory on WTC7 and an analysis of the destruction of the twin towers.

To watch the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQWs44JZckQ&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nNeVuELIe0&mode=related&search=

By Bob Dart, Cox Washington Bureau, Published on: 11/21/06

Washington —- "A leading member of the new Democratic majority in the House is calling for resuming the draft to spread the burden of military service across society —- a gap that Congress itself illustrates."

"When the Democrats take over Congress in January, Rangel said, he will introduce legislation to reinstate a draft for all young Americans".

See article here: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2006/11/21/natdraft1121a.html

My prediction: Rangel introduces the draft, Pelosi counters with “national service”: a draft for everyone. Bad cop, good cop.

Protest the war? Hell no son, you’re going to fight in the war. I here Iran is beautiful in the springtime.

Reminds me of an old folk saying: “Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining”

Do you believe the government lied about the events of 9/11? Do you think a new investigation by congress would expose the lies? If such an investigation took place, would we learn the truth? Many concerned activist seem to view “a new investigation” as the brass ring of ‘the truth movement’. One little problem. The media. For five long years they have remained strangely unable to relay any significant information regarding the truth of events of 9/11 to the public. Do you think they are not aware of the information? Do you think they have not been inundated with emails, faxes and letters presenting extensive evidence of an inside job? If you know the media has intentionally, willfully and quite effectively suppressed the information for the last five years, what would lead you to believe anything would change were “a new investigation” to be launched?

Please don’t mistake my intentions. I have a strong desire to see the truth regarding the events of 9/11 be known to all and support any investigation able to assemble the facts and disseminate the truth to all. A congressional investigation, at this time, however attractive it may seem, is not the answer.

While such investigation could well be used to ‘bring down’ Bush and thereby prepare the way for the kindler, gentler dictator, Hillary, the “facts” would be carefully controlled. A bit of limited hangout concerning prior knowledge, perhaps a “revelation” that Flight 93 was shot down by the military and no more. Videos will miraculously appear showing Flight 77 hitting the pentagon. The parts from Flight 175 and Flight 11 will miraculously appear (now that they finally retired the actual jets, the parts are “available”). The hijacker fairytale will be polished up and retold to firmly implant it in the collective conscious of the American people. Little, if any, damaging evidence will be presented and any that might slip in will never be reported. Any congressional investigation will only be used to retell the Big Lie. Gotcha.

For your listening pleasure. Enjoy.

http://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/BlownToKingdomCome.html

If you like it, pass it on.