Hordon has demonstrated a clear lack of understanding regarding CIT's claims, which you apparently and surprisingly share, by agreeing with him and calling this his "most salient point".

CIT does not automatically put any faith or stock in the ASCE report, or any government data, or reports at all. In fact, I've seen them very vocally stand against accepting any and all govt data or reports as factual unless they can be independently verified. That's exactly why they seek out witnesses so aggressively. It's the only source of independent verifiable evidence, particularly when they find previously unknown witnesses who were never part of the media propaganda to sell the official story. They have always stated how this is the purest source of independent verifiable evidence, and made it their mission to base their conclusions on this type of evidence only.

What's quite clear is that CIT's entire approach is to compare the independent verifiable evidence (eyewitnesses) with the official reports and data to see if they match up. They don't, which is the entire point.

Naturally, CIT references the NTSB, 84RADES, ASCE, and the 9/11 Commission to establish the "official flight path"! Who else would they reference for that? Obviously, they don't accept it outright because they provide eyewitness evidence proving it false. How could that be lost on you and Robin Hordon? The official reports and data hold the govt to their word. The ASCE report proves that the govt says this is where the plane HAS to have approached and hit the building according to them. It holds them to their word, so of course CIT references it.

But what's also clear is that it is 100% unnecessary to rely on a single official report (ASCE included) to demonstrate that the physical damage is directional requiring a south side approach. Photographs and video from multiple sources 100% prove this, starting with the light poles, and ending with the C-ring hole. We know for a fact where the C-ring hole is located, delineating a specific south side approach trajectory from the initial outer facade E-ring damage.

Now of course, you can pull a Chris Sarns and make the borderline insane suggestion that the relatively slow moving, right banking NoC plane reported by so many witnesses still hit the building (yet completely disintegrated) but happened to miss all light poles on the north side, and that the downed south side light poles, generator trailer, retaining wall, C-ring hole, security camera, and all data was completely fabricated EVEN THOUGH the plane hit (makes no sense) but it's not a logical or reasonable suggestion in the least. Particularly since we know people saw the plane flying away. Obviously, if the plane flew away they have PLENTY of motive for all that fabrication. But not if the plane hit.

A north side impact is impossible, and frankly, it's quite silly to suggest otherwise. There is a reason that Chris Sarns is unwilling to back up this disintegrating Boeing "idea" by writing up a formal hypothesis and I am willing to bet that Hordon never will either. That's because it would require exotic weaponry to disappear the plane without leaving a crater in the ground or the Pentagon's foundation. It's a wild, unsupported, and flat out ludicrous notion that is contradicted by the physical evidence, as well as eyewitnesses to the plane flying away.

Given that I've liked some things you've written in the past, (Deconstructing Arabesque) I'm quite astonished that you called this strange straw man argument against CIT regarding the ASCE report, coupled with this exotic disappearing Boeing NoC impact theory, Hordon's "most salient" point.

I see nothing in any of his posts you copied above besides empty posturing, doubt casting, and speculation. Indeed, I challenge you to articulate what this alleged "Pentagon dust" is supposed to be. It looks like pure speculation to me based on the flat out assumption that some sort of "air vehicle" had to have hit the building on the south path causing the damage to the generator trailer and the retaining wall. He has not presented a coherent analysis here at all. While CIT has provided a massive body of independent verifiable evidence, Hordon has presented zero evidence as far as I can tell. Please point out what evidence he presents if you don't agree.

Finally, it should be noted that CIT did not "adopt a pet theory." They went looking for all the eyewitnesses they could get their hands on, and after having interviewed numerous eyewitnesses who independently corroborated the same flight path over and over, one which contradicts the required flight path, they used deductive reasoning to come to what is the only logical conclusion.