Good Lord. Prima facie Frank. Look it up. I'm not making a claim about the plane. I don't know what happened (and neither do you). There is gobs of evidence contradictory to your claim, as we have already discussed.

That there is no evidence of a 757 smoldering inside the pentagon is not a claim that I know where the plane is - it is a refutation of your claim. To state that witness saw a plane travel over an area in contradiction to the governments claim is not a claim of where the plane is or what happened to it, it is submission of evidence contradictory to the claim. In the real world (I invite you to visit sometime) your claim 'on first appearance' must hold it own. Unfortunately eyewitness testimony - 13 people independently interviewed and unanimous in their account is a death blow of evidence contrary to the claim that the plane flew south of the Citgo. You may not like that. You could claim 'conspiracy' of the eyewitnesses - but why bother - you've got plenty to prove already and you're coming up way short. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Please reread my hypothetical scenario to understand the foolishness of your argument.

I never said the FAA radar data is infallibly accurate - I said it supports the testimony of 13 independently interviewed witness who were unanimous in their account. Based on that - it appears the radar data could be accurate - is that unreasonable? <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />



Yes, you got me. Because its not on my own site - I must be lying. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/kewl.gif" alt="" /> ...Just like all them FBI counterterrorism agents who were locked out of the 9-11 Commission proceedings - thank goodness eh?