Hi Keenan,

I've been following this discussion and couldn't help but chime in here. I've been reading Robin's postings as well, but just don't understand how you could possibly think that his "approach has the best chance at this point to make the most progress in uncovering the truth about the pentagon attack"?

The fact that he provides no actual evidence to back up what he says is reason enough for me, at least, to "dismiss all of Hordon's analysis and information and contributions". Particularly since his "contributions" amount to nothing but various postings on blogger, and his incoherent affidavit for the failed April Gallop lawsuit. Until Hordon provides evidence, I have no reason to accept his posts at face value, particularly since he is publicly making false accusations about CIT's position on the ASCE report. To me, that demonstrates a tendency to come to wrong conclusions and make baseless claims when talking off the cuff - particularly when it's criticizing others.

I'll be happy to look at any evidence he provides, but he's been talking big for a while now, and has provided absolutely nothing as far as I can tell. Actual researchers don't need to use hype, they will typically research quietly UNTIL they have evidence to provide. Hordon has done the opposite, so I just don't understand why you hold him in such high regard, Keenan.

Oh, and by the way, it was 100% clear that he was specifically talking about CIT when referencing the ASCE report as he says:

"The biggest problem in establishing a "flyover" is that...

...CIT depends upon the Building Performance Report to accomplish this."

He's wrong. They do not and have not. This is not a "salient" point, it is an entirely false characterization that is opposite to reality, and a good reason to think that his criticisms are off the mark.

Also, YOUR claim that "P4T has shown too much willingness to accept government supplied data" is also false. As far as I can see, P4T have made it their mission to analyze government data and expose anomalies - this is primarily what they do. So, of course they reference the official data, but from a position of skepticism. Why would you claim the opposite, especially without citing an example? I see this as a complete false characterization from what I have seen, at least, from P4T.

I also notice that, after enthusiastically touting Hordon's alleged "Pentagon dust" you have now already admitted that he overstated his case. Well, just as he is unable to present a coherent analysis or a SHRED of evidence to back up his lengthy and numerous posts, including what you agree to be lofty claims, he is unable to make a coherent case against P4T. He just rails off unsupported fallacies and wordy straw man arguments, just like he did against CIT regarding their position on the ASCE report.

You haven't cited a single piece of evidence or supported claim that he has made, and are merely deferring to his alleged expertise as a former air traffic controller and assuming that because he criticizes P4T and CIT that he must have a point. There is a reason why you are unable to articulate it or support these accusations with any examples with quotes from P4T or CIT presentations. Because Hordon doesn't.

Regarding the C-ring hole, you are are ADMITTING that you think it's staged damage. a point I would agree with, since the collected evidence proves a flyover. But let me ask you this: what is the point of staging damage at all if the plane hit the building? The point is that the C-ring hole IS the very end of the damage pattern which definitively establishes the ending point of the trajectory. This can not be denied, and we don't have to rely on an government report to determine exactly where this is located. This can not have been caused by a plane on the north side.

Regarding the right bank: you ignored the "relatively slow" part. The official flight path can not have a relatively slow plane in a significant right bank as described and completely disintegrate. This is irreconcilable with all the physical damage. The witnesses don't describe a wild flight path - like the absurd path postulated in a silly video by someone named "broken sticks" - with an acrobatic right to left roll which is also irreconcilable with the physical damage. You can't just make stuff up that is unsupported by the witnesses and all evidence.

Keenan, if you don't believe the plane hit you have no logical choice BUT to accept a flyover. You'd be foolish to deny that there was a large plane involved at all at this point with all the witnesses. So, yes, that means flyover. And that IS all that matters because it proves 9/11 was an inside job. The fact that the plane obviously flew north of the CITGO gas station is now established at such a ridiculously high level and proves a deception, regardless of exactly what else happened. Will we ever know everything including exactly what type of explosives were used to damage the building, etc.? Of course not! Nor do we need to know - just like we will never know exactly how the towers came down. Even the nanothermite evidence is unnecessary. We don't need it to know there was a controlled demolition. Controlled demolition is a logical inference given the fact that a natural collapse is impossible and it proves 9/11 was an inside job so none of the other details matter.

It's the exact same thing with the flyover: it is the only logical inference, given the fact that a north side impact is impossible, and that planes don't just disappear, so the other details don't matter. There's also the fact that people saw it flying away - no matter how much you choose to minimize Roosevelt Roberts and the people reported by Erik Dihle.

Speculation about missiles being shot from the plane etc is entirely unnecessary. If you have EVIDENCE for these things by all means present it. But you don't, it seems, and you were just forced to admit that neither does Hordon, either. He doesn't have any "Pentagon dust". If anything, that's the eyewitness evidence placing the plane north of the CITGO gas station (the NoC approach).

The case of the Pentagon attack is just as "closed' as the WTC attack. I'll repeat it again, just to make sure everyone understands: the point is, we do not NEED to know exactly how the damage was caused to the WTC in order to recognize that it was a controlled demolition.

It's the same with the flyover at the Pentagon. We do not NEED to know exactly how the damage was caused to the Pentagon in order to agree that what happened was a flyover.

The NoC approach the witnesses saw proves a flyover. If you have a better explanation, I'd like to hear it, complete with evidence. But if the only way you can deny it is to suggest it's all a disinfo ruse - as Gretavo does - this amounts to nothing but casting unfortunate and unsupported doubt on legitimate and solid evidence that fatally contradicts the official story. It's a real shame to me that you guys have chosen to have such a stance on this information, and it makes me wonder just how useful this site really is.