I wasn't necessarily agreeing with all of Robin's specific criticisms against CIT, and to CIT's credit they have shown the least willingness to take any government supplied data or reports at face value. Also, I don't think Robin was only referring to CIT when he made this point. There are many other researchers who don't automatically doubt the veracity of all information provided by the US government when they should. I think this applies especially for the Jim Hoffman camp, but even P4T has shown too much willingness to accept government supplied data. So, put in the proper perspective, I'm still of the opinion that this is a very salient point that Hordon made for the truth movement in general.

"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."

I don't think the C-ring hole can be used to prove anything. Especially not as evidence that any sort of air-borne vehicle punctured the wall, because the hole is too perfectly round and looks to be merely a "punch out" hole, and the pictures do not show any object outside the C ring wall that could have made that hole.

"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."

A few things. Some of those things you listed, such as whether the plane was right banking (even if it was right banking at some point, how do you know it didn't shift to a left bank, etc., after that), missing of the generator trailer (there appears to be damage to the generator trailer), the purpose of the variously fabricated data and ground props, etc., are not established with any degree of certainty as you seem to suggest. In fact, even the "plane bomb" theory or some variation, while I agree it may seem unlikely, cannot be ruled out with 100% certainty. There are just too many complex issues and unexplained mysteries and conflicting pieces of data yet to be resolved to declare "case closed" at this point.

"Particularly since we know people saw the plane flying away."

Well, this again has not yet been established with any degree of certainty. Sorry, but more corroborating witnesses or other corroborating evidence would need to be found to make this so. Rosavelt Roberts' testimony is certainly interesting, but even he seemed a bit confused as to the direction the plane was flying, and he didn't actually witness the plane flying first from the Citco side before he allegedly saw it on the other side of the Pentagon, and he could be wrong as to the timing, etc. I'm not rejecting Roberts' testimony, I'm saying that it is nowhere near good enough to declare case closed that this alone proves a flyover.

Let me step back for a minute and say that I believe that the flyover theory is one of the more probable, if not the most probable of all the theories as to what actually happened, based on the far from adequate information and number of independently verified and corroborated witnesses we have so far. And so does Hordon. In fact, even Hordon maintains that the flyover theory is certainly possible and reasonable. Not only that, but Hordon continues to research that line of inquiry, and even might be able to add useful data that could help support it:

BTW...I have evidence supporting the possibility that the HI PERPS scrubbed some radar data along the flight path of an airvehicle that overflew the Penatgon along that flight path...and have so stated...and also...

...I have supported the view that if there were an overflight of the Penatgon, the airvehicle would not be as easily noticed as most people think. This is because National Airport was departing to the north that day and the departures and arrivalls in and out of National are quite routine, and thusly go unnoticed to most travellers on the highways.

Wow. Did you see that? Not only is Hordon not dismissing the flyover theory, he might even be able to provide additional evidence or information that could actually support it. The point is that Hordon has not adopted any pet theories and continues to pursue multiple lines of inquiry at the same time, including the flyover theory, given that we still only know perhaps "10%" of the whole story of the Pentagon attack at this point. Another possibility he brought up which I think needs to be seriously considered, is that the plane that approached the Pentagon could likely have been a military aircraft that was painted to look like AA77. With a military aircraft involved, that brings in even more possibilities that need to be considered. Some of these possibilities may include:
1) that the aircraft might have shot a missile before either impacting or flying over the building
2) that the aircraft might have been small enough to maneuver around or miss light poles that might have been in the vacinity of the North path (has anybody mapped out the poles on that side to see exactly what the possibilities are?)
3) a missile fired from the attacking aircraft and/or pre-planted explosives in the building, may have opened up a hole big enough for the potentially smaller sized military aircraft to fit through.
4) a military aircraft could have characteristics that give it a much bigger range of speed/maneuverability compared to that of a Boeing 757, which, therefore would provide the need for recalculating what would be possible for the plane to have been capable of.

These are just some possibilities off the top of my head, and there are probably more. The point is that we are nowhere near the point where we should consider the case closed and that if we therefore don't immediately follow lock-step behind CIT's flyover theory we must be "borderline insane". I think we all need to step back and make sure we are not being too emotionally territorial in defending certain pet theories, particularly since very little has been proven at all at this point and so much remains as far as conflicting pieces of evidence that can point to so many possible scenarios. This appears to have been by design, considering the way in which the perps have put out so much conflicting information and data. So, let's be wary of falling into their traps and remain cautious and open minded as much as possible.

"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."

If that is how you interpreted my comment above, then you have seriously misunderstood my points, as I've hopefully made clear at this point so far.

"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."

Now that I have considered his so-called "Pentagon dust", which apparently is the assertion that the damage pattern on the generator trailer and low concrete wall could help establish the profile of the specific type of plane that might have flown into the building, I agree that he seems to have overstated his case. Calling it the "Pentagon dust" is definitely a stretch. And yes, much work needs to be done to analyze and come up with a coherent hypothesis regarding this scenario.

But I think it is really unfair for you to dismiss all of Hordon's analysis and information and contributions. His knowledge and expertise of many areas that relate to this complex investigation, including his experience as an air traffic controller and a commercial pilot, has provided us with much useful technical information and analysis, while pointed us towards many useful lines of inquiry to pursue. He has also provided much needed balance and levelheadedness to a debate the seems to be getting only more shrill with most of the usual personalities involved. As a knowledgeable pilot and air traffic controller, Hordon's criticisms of P4T, and why he left the group, need to be seriously considered, and it can only be a good thing for the movement to have someone else experienced and knowledgeable enough to be able to check and verify the claims of P4T because there have already been at least a few reasons that have come up to give us reason to be cautious of P4T and some of their claims.

No one person or organization researching the Pentagon attack should be assumed to be above scrutiny or criticism at this point, especially since no one has proven what actually happened there yet, and so much information and data we do have is so contradictory and points to so many possible scenarios at this point. Perhaps by looking at the information from all sources, and considering the possibility that the truth lay somewhere in between the various "camps" or sources of information and might include pieces from various conflicting groups or researchers, we might have a better chance of getting to the truth. Which is kind of the point that Hordon made when he said:

My guess is that IF we can back off, consider Honegger's work, consider CIT's eyewitnesses, and dig into some of all these "buried?" reports, as well as use the volumes of good stuff provided by our solid researchers, maybe we will see something that everyone has missed, or misinterpreted.

Again, in my opinion this story is far from over and the case of uncovering the full truth of the Pentagon attack far from being declared closed, and by pursuing multiple lines of inquiry at the same time at this point, rather than sticking to a single pet theory, would seem to be the best course of action for the truth movement for now.