Quote
Where is the plane is not the point.


Of course it is. Since you seem to be saying that the burden of proof is on the one who makes a claim of something happening - and since you say that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, you must be prepared to provide evidence to the contrary..... so where is the plane?

Quote
The plane wasn't flying in between buildings.


No, but it's not the plane flying between buildings - it's the RF waves that move around and through buildings and trees and bounce off of objects other than planes that causes the anomalies. Interference bends the waves or causes echos and reflections which causes errors in calculated data. Weather and other RF interference also contributes. How do you think a radar jammer works? Whether it is a radar, LORAN or GPS, the hardest calculation for the machine to correctly interpret is a turn or curve. The curious flight path that so many folks think was a pilot who couldn't make up his mind was instead perhaps a very smart fellow who knew that a diving tight turn at high speed was something that could/would help him evade any potential missile threats.... because that's the most difficult action that any radar has to deal with in trying to interpolate a correct track.

Quote
So lets see it. Lets see the footage. Lets see the wreckage. If its a slam dunk these should be very simple to provide.


Let's see the evidence of where the plane went - if not into the Pentagon. If it's a slam dunk the evidence should be easy to provide.

Quote
The official selectivity of the evidence suggests the evidence they provide is not to be trusted.


But folks should accept your selective and mostly irrelevent claims? Why do you glom on to the FAA radar data as infallibly accurate, yet not be able to see from the data where the plane went if it didn't hit the Pentagon?

Quote
Rolls Royce made the engines for this plane - they say the single rotor found in the wreckage isn't from them.


Can you show me an official Rolls Royce statement to back that claim?

Quote
What coincidence apologists will do - as we see here - is beat the false claim horse to death. All other evidence is 'irrelevent'. They must stick to single point or their argument becomes ridiculous.


If you can't answer the question of the plane's whereabouts, you have nothing more than a theory - and not a very good one. That single point is one you have to answer to make your case - and you can't do it.

Quote
Frank won't show us wreckage of a 757 from the Pentagon because there is none.


Really?

Quote
There's pieces of an aircraft, but there are many types of aircraft that fit these pieces.


Including a 757.

Quote
It was actually quite fun - actually had a fellow reporter of one who interviewed me tell me to "Lay off" his buddy. And they loved it after the interviews when I told them I had recorded the conversation and would be posting it on my site.


I don't recall seeing that on your site - you didn't actually lie to him, did you? Not a Truther. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/scared.gif" alt="" />

Quote
There's still investigative journalism going on but you won't find it in megamedia.


Phew! What a relief to know some folks are on the job! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/kewl.gif" alt="" /> That's probably a coincidence, though. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />

Where's the plane, Phil? With all that good radar, the answer should be easy.

Frank

'89 [color:"white"]G-Raider[color:"white"] [color:"black"]Supercharged 3.0L, MegaSquirt 2, lockup A/T, 2.5" exhaust, 172k, Cibie H4s/Oscar SCs, Hella Micro DE fogs, Cobra CB, Superwinch hubs, LSD rear/Aussie Locker front, Bilsteins, Lifeline AGM, Rust-Oleum