I am certainly not hoping for an alternative scenario, so I hope that's not how you interpreted my statement.

That is not how I interpreted it. What I am saying is that hoping for anything is futile and pointless and a waste of time. It's time for action, not hope.

In fact, I really do hope that additional witnesses, or videos, or other evidence will be found to corroborate a flyover, since that is the most likely scenario. But I don't think we can say that no more research/investigation needs to be done and we can go home and declare "case closed" at this point.

THIS is the problem. It's exactly the same as refusing to embrace CD until more proof of planted bombs is uncovered. Let's face it, the movement didn't wait for the nano-thermite paper to embrace CD and tout it is as proof. Nor should they have. None of us can test the veracity of the nano-thermite paper. It is unverifiable by the layman unlike the witness evidence we present which can be verified with the source directly with a simple phone call. There is a lopsided standard of proof in the movement when comparing the Pentagon attack to the WTC.

Look, for over 4 years I have resisted endorsing any specific theory of what exactly happened at the Pentagon, because I've seen that doing so too often was used as a trap to pigeonhole anybody who was a skeptic of the OCT of a 757 impact, focing them to argue for a specific theory that could then be attacked because of a lack of solid evidence for that theory.

Right. So you admit that you have a psychological barrier when it comes to the Pentagon attack due to previous disinfo that fuels your lopsided standard of proof. While this is perfectly understandable, our point is that THIS is the problem when it comes to embracing the undeniable implications of the definitive evidence we present. There is not a "lack of solid evidence" for the north side approach that 100% PROVES a flyover. This is the point.

So, I have instead argued from a point of "I don't have to prove WHAT happened at the Pentagon in order to argue the obvious fact that a 757 did NOT crash there. It's the government's responsibility to prove what happened." Perhaps that is an outdated position now, what with the huge body of evidence published by CIT and other researchers more recently and I'm just shellshocked, who knows?

You're starting to get it. Yes it is outdated. And yes it is EXACTLY how Jon Gold argues against CD of WTC and similar to how the rest of TrueFaction argues against the Pentagon (although they won't even accept that the plane did not hit). WE KNOW we don't "need" to prove what happened to um "demand" an investigation, but the fact is that we HAVE and this definitive evidence should NOT be precluded with open ended vague questions or by asking the govt to prove what happened. They won't.

We think the notion of a new investigation into IF the 9/11 official story is false is silly. Yet this is what the movement and certainly Jon Gold is calling for. They won't investigate and convict themselves and we already have the proof. We demand an investigation into WHO the perpetrators really are under the premise that what we have been told has already been proven a complete lie. Because it has.

If you tell them to investigate CD, they will simply tell you there was no CD.

I disagree that it is a perfect analogy with Jon Gold, who claims that advocating the CD is a "speculative theory that hurts the movement." I have never said anythong of the sort regarding the flyover theory.

You missed the entire point of my analogy. I'm not saying that your attitude towards Pentagon attack evidence is similar to Jon Gold's attitude toward Pentagon attack evidence. I'm saying that your attitude toward Pentagon attack evidence is similar to his attitude to WTC CD evidence. He suggests that although it may be true, that it sounds too kooky to the average person and should not be used in campaigns.

The fact is that the evidence we provide is every bit as definitive as the evidence that has been provided at the WTC. In fact a case can be made that it would be much more effective for campaigning. Give the average joe (or congressman) a copy of the nano-thermite paper and National Security Alert and which do you think will have a more profound affect?