I really don't like it when people tell baldfaced lies about me.
Baker says "
And it's ironic that I should be labeled someone who just makes statements without supporting them.
It was from my correspondence with the Webfairy that I first began to have suspicions. It was she
who dimissed my inquiries with no explanation."

This is BALDFACE LIE.
I received one of the most obviously phoney pictures I ever saw.
The original is posted at
thewebfairy.com/911/phony/767.jpg
Baker's enlargement:
thewebfairy.com/911/phony/boeing_767.jpg

I responded:
> This is so farked and phoneybaloney'ed I'm suprised anybody gives it any
> thought
> beyond "gee, more fakery."
>
> I'm guessing this is because people aren't familiar enough with what
> enlargements look like, and what phoneybaloney filters applied to hide farking
> looks like.
>
> This has had some photoshop "artistic" filter applied to spoil the resolution.
> Usually this is done after something has been added in, to hide the
> demarkations.
> There is no sort of compression scheme that would create this shower-door
> distortion pattern.
>
> This is a leg-pull, not a "finding,"

Baker says:
"Phoney-baloney" she called the photo I sent her.
No reason why, just total dismissal. My inquiries are typically reasonably well researched, certainly
nothing to just brush aside. This and other behaviour on her part raise serious red flags for me, and I
don't cast aspersions lightly. "

I'd say the photoshopped shower-curtain effect is plenty reason to dismiss this picture as a fake.

Others noticed the picture was NOT a 767, and that the skies over New York were clear on 911.

I must have pulled the curtain on some sort of scam.
That's the only reason I can think of for his peculiar vendetta.